Pericles' Funeral Speech

In all Classical Greek studies, there is a definite emphasis on honoring the dead. In the Iliad, Homer gives the impression that the men's legacies depend on the ceremonies given in their name. For a man to be honored after death, his family and city would throw elaborate celebrations, praise him in speeches, and spend money and make sacrifices in his name, oftentimes honoring him as a god. The more extravagantly honored someone was, the greater and more god-like their legacy would be. For example, in the Iliad Achilles holds a grand festival in Patroclos' honor, involving a series of feasts and games with prizes that lasted several days. Similarly, Thucydides tells us of the annual funeral ceremonies held by the Athenians throughout the war which involved the same type of doting care and accordance to custom. Those described about the Athenians are much different in their mood, but quite similar in their pattern and dedication to custom. He states that first, the Athenians take the bones of those lost in battle to a tent where the citizens come with offerings for their own dead- family and loved ones. They then construct coffins of cypress wood, one for each tribe and one more that is empty as a remembrance for those who died but whose remains were not able to be retrieved. The coffins prepared, they are placed on wagons and, joined by any Athenians or foreigners who wish to, make their way to the tomb outside of the city walls. Here the women lament for the dead men, and the bones are buried. After the tribute period, funeral procession, and lamentations the citizens chose a man whom they hold in high esteem to make a speech. Thucydides gives the account of that made by Pericles. This far the ceremonies seem very traditional, but Pericles seems to contrast them in his speech.

The very first thing that he mentions in his speech is the history and purpose of the speech itself, and his disagreement with its role in the ceremonies. As he continues, "Our belief in the courage and manliness of so many should not be hazarded on the goodness or badness of one man's speech." This seems like a very strange thing for him to say, given the Greeks' reverence for speeches and verbal praise. Though Pericles has been given the great honor of giving the funeral speech, to speak to the entire city about the honors of his fellow men, he prefaces it by claiming it inadequate. He says that previous speakers have praised the institution of the speech, but he feels the opposite of it, that the honor and glory of these men should not be dependent on one man's account. Rather, he says, their memories should carry on in the hearts and minds of those both in Athens and around the world. The honor of their actions should and will outlast any story of them. "They gave her Pericles treats every other part of the speech with somberness and respect, honoring first the ancestors of Athens, then the structure and people of the city, and then lastly the men who have died in battle. We do not hear any protest to his talk of the importance of the speeches, but perhaps it is because it is overshadowed by the rest of his speech. His statement is, however, so in contradiction to the customs we see otherwise that we expect to hear some alternate side, some defense for the speeches. This must be because either the people do not notice, as I said, or because Thucydides does not mention any other opinion in this situation. This brings up another interesting point regarding Thucydides' historical accuracy. He claims complete unbiased ness in his histories, or at least to the extent that he can be so. But even if someone gives a completely detached account of every part they write in a history, can there still be bias shown in the things they chose not to include? Does their ability, their decision to include certain things and not others, or the level of attention they give certain things also provide an unbalanced picture for their readers? For instance, any reaction from the citizens to Pericles' speech would be beneficial to the reader, telling us if his statement against the institution of speeches was frowned upon or not. Perhaps this was a general feeling either at this time or among this certain group of men, but we would not know unless Thucydides told us.

Perhaps we will never be able to know or recount something unless we have experienced something firsthand. Our perceptions of the events of the war are entirely based on what Thucydides decides to tell us, just as the account of the soldiers' deaths and their legacies are, with the institution of the speech, completely relying on Pericles' account of them. Each case is that of one man trying to put a legacy into mere words, so that the dead and their stories may be remembered. But, in one sense we can see a crucial difference between the two men. Pericles states that his speech should not be held to the level of actions, either those by the men who died or by the ceremonies held by the city in their honor. He understands the fact that men are just that- men- and cannot possibly expect to fully encapsulate a time period or a life through his own writing. Thucydides, on the other hand, is quite insistent that he is providing the ideal account of the wars. I realize that the two men are writing and speaking in two different settings and Thucydides on a much broader scale, but still I believe that their general purposes are the same- to talk about the lives and cities of men in battle. Thucydides states that he has taken every precaution to assure the most accuracy possible in his histories, "And with regard to my factual reporting of the events of the war I have made it a principle not to write down the first story that came my way, and not even to be guided by my own general impressions; either I was present myself at the events which I have described or else I heard of them from eye-witnesses whose reports I have checked with as much thoroughness as possible." While I believe that Thucydides had every intention of providing the most thorough and accurate history possible, I feel an extra sort of respect for Pericles in his ability to admit his mortal state. He understands that the history of these men is so much more than he can put into words, and tries to get his audience to understand this, but Thucydides tries to convince his of the complete opposite.

This difference in their approaches and the idea of leaving certain things out of histories makes me wonder if there was ever a speech or ceremony by the Spartans give to their dead. I would imagine so. One of the speeches given by the Corinthians gives an account of the Athenians that surprised me somewhat. "As for their bodies, they regard them as expendable for their city's sake, as though they were not their own; but each man cultivates his own intelligence, again with a view to doing something notable for his city." This seems like a very Spartan view of their soldiers, that each was expendable for the sake of their city. Athens is described by Plutarch however as much more concerned with the individuals of their city. All of this leads me to believe that the two cities probably did not treat their dead much differently as far as ceremonies and respect are concerned, and so there must have been some sort of burial given by the Spartans. If this is true, and Thucydides simply did not want to include it, then he has even less of a right to criticize Homer as he does. For, even Homer gives an equal account of the two sides of the war in the Iliad, including his description of the funeral armistice and both sides' actions during this time. It is possible that I am jumping to conclusions too quickly and with too little foundation, but for now I feel like I have some reason to speculate these things. I suppose what this all means is just as Thucydides said in the beginning of his book, that he was not a poet, rather a historian. In that case, would we call Pericles a poet, or prose writer even, simply because he understands the limitations on his perceptions as a human being, while Thucydides thinks that he is able to surpass them? I do find the whole of Thucydides' history very interesting, but was moved more than anything else in the text by Pericles' speech. After examining it, I don't think that this is simply because of the situation- a funeral for loved ones- that makes it so endearing, but his sincere understanding of his condition. He manages the duality of realizing that he, as well as each of those men who died, are merely human, but that what exists in their death- the glory, the sacrifice, and the honor- is so much more, something that men like him cannot replicate with words.