More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of pericles funeral oration
Speech analysis of pericles funeral oration
History of Peloponnesian war theme
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Funeral Oration vs. The Plague
Thucydides, considered one of the greatest ancient historians, spent part of his life detailing the war between Athens and Sparta. In his work, The History of the Peloponnesian War, he includes a speech given by Pericles at the first Athenian funeral of the war. Right after the speech by Pericles, Thucydides follows with a description of the plague that cripples the population of the city. Thucydides does this to make a statement on his personal views of the Athenian society.
In the first of the two texts, Pericles is making a very bold statement on the state of the Athens. “Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves.” In his speech, Pericles is trying to rally the Athenians to support the new democracy and to make them feel important by being associated with
…show more content…
something so great. Athens sets the standard for neighboring states to follow; the Athenians do not do the following. However, based on the how the text is written it is easy to conclude that Thucydides does not agree with the claim. Immediately after Pericles finishes his speech about democracy in Athens, Thucydides describes the plague that ravages through Athens.
He is trying to give his thoughts on democracy by writing the text in this order.
“For the disorder first settled in the head, ran its course from thence through the whole of the body, and even where it did not prove mortal, it still left its mark on the extremities; for it settled in the privy parts, the fingers and the toes, and many escaped with the loss of these, some too with that of their eyes.”
This quote from the text can be taken as a metaphor regarding Thucydides thoughts on democracy from his perspective. He believed that, like the plague, the democracy would become ill first by the head, or the leaders of democracy, and then trickle down into the body, or the actual people of Athens. Thucydides wrote The History of the Peloponnesian War in this particular order, first with The Funeral Oration and then second with The Plague, to create a specific contrast of topics, but then to try to prove a point through the structure of the
text. The dichotomy of ideas goes from the first funeral of the Peloponnesian War, where Pericles spoke, then jumps to the plague that kills a noticeable percentage of Athenians. The quick transition from something that is very traditional for the Athenians, being the funeral, then going to the plague, which brought Athens to its knees, begs to be noticed. The purpose behind writing in this style is to create a text that is out of the ordinary, allowing the reader to pick up on the hints left by the author and notice the metaphor written into the text. The metaphor Thucydides wishes to present is that a democratic style of government is just like the plague in that it will become corrupt from the head and spread down throughout the body. In other words, the people of society will be negatively impacted by the selfish decisions that their leaders make.
In these documents there are elements that are the same and as well there are some parts that will be complete opposites of one another. For that purpose it should be pointed out why and what makes these aspects of the said documents which will help us understand the times they were written in. The first of the documents to go over will be the Athenian constitution as it has numerous references to who holds office and why, for an example in part five section 43 it states how someone can hold office and who can at that, along with how and who votes them into office; “All the magistrates that are concerned with the ordinary routine of administration are elected by lot, except the Military Treasurer, the Commissioners of the Theoric fund, and the Superintendent of
Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” and Pericles “Funeral Oration” are both speeches that clearly portray similar and diverse components.
In Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War the Athenian Empire started out with just intentions, but once they had a taste for power they did whatever it took to obtain more, even if they had to take it by force. Over time the Athenian Empire became ruled by individuals acting with the sole purpose of furthering their own self-interests at any cost, which led to the empire becoming more amenable to the use of force as a means to get what they desired. One such instance where someone in the Athenian Empire was more than willing to use force to get what he or she wanted was during the Mytilenenian dialogues. The Athenian colony of Mytilene attempted to rebel against Athenian rule but when they failed their fate rested on the outcome of the debate between Diodotus and Cleon. Thucydides refers to Cleon as the “most violent man in Athens” and he demonstrates how he earned that name when he suggests that the Athenians kill every man of fighting age and enslave the rest. Cleon then says, “Give these people the punishment they deserve… show them that the penalty for rebellion is death” (Thucydides, p. 70-71) because he believes that this show of power and force will dissuade other colonies under Athenian rule from thinking about rebellion. Fortunately for the Mytilenians Athens did not use force in this
First, I will explain Pericles view on a perfect community and how it is later affected by unjust speech. A successful society requires the commitment of the whole community
Pericles did not wish to simply reiterate what Athens had achieved, but rather he wanted to address how and why Athens achieved. He believed that Athenian politics, culture, and character were more relevant to the deceased soldiers than their ancestor’s military successes. Accordingly, he praised these elements of Athenian society and in the process justified the soldiers’ sacrifice. He spoke “but what was the road by which we reached our position, what the form of government under which our greatness grew, what the national habits out of which it sprang; these are the questions which I may try to solve before I proceed to my eulogy upon these men; since I think this to be a subject upon which on the present occasion a speaker may properly dwell, and to which the whole assemblage, whether citizens or foreigners, may listen with advantage.” (2.36.4).
Thucydides set out to narrate the events of what he believed would be a great war—one requiring great power amassed on both sides and great states to carry out. Greatness, for Thucydides, was measured most fundamentally in capital and military strength, but his history delves into almost every aspect of the war, including, quite prominently, its leaders. In Athens especially, leadership was vital to the war effort because the city’s leaders were chosen by its people and thus, both shaped Athens and reflected its character during their lifetimes. The leaders themselves, however, are vastly different in their abilities and their effects on the city. Thucydides featured both Pericles and Alcibiades prominently in his history, and each had a distinct place in the evolution of Athenian empire and the war it sparked between Athens and Sparta. Pericles ascended to power at the empire’s height and was, according to Thucydides, the city’s most capable politician, a man who understood fully the nature of his city and its political institutions and used his understanding to further its interests in tandem with his own. After Pericles, however, Thucydides notes a drastic decline in the quality of Athenian leaders, culminating in Alcibiades, the last major general to be described in The Peloponnesian War. While he is explicit in this conclusion, he is much more reticent regarding its cause. What changed in Athens to produce the decline in the quality of its leadership?
Thucydides was right to claim that all wars can be explained by Fear, Honor, and Interest. All Wars are related to the three characteristics as stated by Dr. Nation (Dr. Nation video). The Athenians thought process was that the weak would be ruled by the strong and that was the nature of conflict (Strassler p. 43). Looking at the Peloponnesian war itself will illustrate how fear, honor and interest were involved with how this war developed. The initial unnamed Athenian that made that statement was probably using it to deter war with Sparta when it mostly incited the war (Dr. Nation Video). The Athenians wanted to maintain and sustain their city state but also expand it. They were expanding through their alliances and this is what invoked the
Athens government and military is considerably different from their neighbors. According to Pericles, Athens government is not a copy of our neighbors...
Rodney, Sydney. "Pericles." Ancient Greece. University Inc., 11 May 2003. Web. 7 Dec. 2013. .
The Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) was a conflict between the Athenian Empire and the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta that resulted in the end of the Golden Age of Athens. The events of the war were catalogued by the ancient historian Thucydides in The History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides’ writings showed the ancient Greek belief that there is a parallel between the city-state and the character of its citizens; in order for the city-state to be successful, its citizens must be virtuous. Thucydides did not believe that the true cause of the Peloponnesian War were the immediate policies of the Athenian Empire against the city-states in the Peloponnesian League but rather the fundamental differences in the character of the two city-states
The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.
The death of Pericles was a significant event in the course of the Peloponnesian War; however, even without Pericles' leadership the Athenian Assembly had countless opportunities to prevent their loss and chose not to take them. The fickleness and inefficiency of democracy ('the mob') allowed the Athenians to be easily influenced and therefore electing populists such as Cleon, Lysicles and Hyperbolus into dominant leadership roles. Election, via democratic means, of such populists, meant that the Athenians would take a much more aggressive approach to the war and therefore abandon the policies that Pericles had previously established. So in turn, democracy the institution for which the Athenians fought tirelessly to protect, rather than the death of Pericles, ironically became the dominant factor influencing the final outcome of this Ancient Greek civil war.
The causes of the Peloponnesian War proved to be too great between the tension-filled stubborn Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. As Thucydides says in Karl Walling’s article, “Never had so many human beings been exiled, or so much human blood been shed” (4). The three phases of the war, which again, are the Archidamian war, the Sicilian Expedition and the Decelean war, show the events that followed the causes of the war, while also showing the forthcoming detrimental effects that eventually consumed both Athens and eventually Sparta effectively reshaping Greece.
Robinson, Charles Alexander. Athens in the age of Pericles. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1959.
It is widely known that the Athenians highly valued their warrior class, and they saw the warriors as a ring of the higher circle of the society. The Athenians were very proud of Athena and its traditions, as well. Athenian’s thought that Athena was the best, none could be better. The funeral oration was aimed to respect the fallen as well as to keep up the national pride and its passion to protect their nation. The speech was a eulogy which focused on the eminence of Athens and its predecessors. Usually a son was chosen to give the eulogy. The law required the speech to have several essential components. The speech had to concerning the lives of the deceased. At his eulogy’s end, Pericles spoke in regard to the soldiers. The speech talked about the life that the departed lived and the achievements which they gained. Pericles wanted the citizens to recall the soldiers but to forget about the tragedy that had occurred. He wanted the departed’s lives to be remembered, but not their demise. The speech helped the Athenians appreciate what their ancestors had died for and how they shou...