CLSC2500: Paper Two
The Price of Immortality: Rhetoric and Reality in Pericles’ Funeral Oration
Figure 1: Philipp Foltz, Pericles's Funeral Oration (Perikles hält die Leichenrede) (1852)
Pericles’ funeral oration (Thucydides, 431 BCE), while historically celebrated for its rhetorical mastery, fails as a genuine reflection of Athenian democratic virtue. Idealizing an exclusionary political system, glorifying the human cost of war, promoting exceptionalism, neglecting personal grief, and obscuring internal societal inequalities, it renders more as a tool of propaganda than of absolute Athenian greatness.
Pericles portrays Athenian democracy as a model for the world, distinguished by its democratic ideals, advanced cultural significance, and egalitarian values (Figure 1). He asserts all citizens are equal before the law, with justice accessible to all. However, this idealized vision of Athenian democracy is undermined by its systemic exclusion of women, slaves, and non-citizens, who collectively constituted the majority of the population, and to whom the oration would have been delivered. An exclusionary reality which undermines the universality of the values Pericles extols, raising critical questions about the limitations and contradictions within Athenian democracy.
Pericles declares, “Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people” (Thucydides, 431 BCE). An assertion which emphasizes the equality of citizens and the participatory nature of governance. Pericles praises the Athenian system for its meritocracy, where individuals are judged not by their class but by their ability (Hall, 2019). A vision of Athens as a systemic society where freedom and equality prevail is presented in stark contrast to those of Athens’ enemies, particularly Sparta.
However, this idealization fails to acknowledge significant problematic exclusions within the Athenian political system. Women, integral to the social and economic fabric of Athens, were denied any political rights or public voice. Slaves, who constituted a substantial portion of the population and were essential to Athens’ economy, were entirely excluded from the democratic process. Similarly, metics, many of whom were skilled artisans and traders contributing to Athens’ economic prosperity, were also barred from citizenship and its associated rights.
These exclusions expose a fundamental contradiction in the democratic ideals championed by Pericles. While he extols Athens as a beacon of freedom and equality, these values were still restricted to a narrow slice of the population - free, male citizens. This restricted definition of citizenship undermines Pericles’ purported universality of Athenian democracy, and by excluding the majority of Athens’ inhabitants, the highly stratified social system perpetuated significant inequality at odds with the ideals of justice and fairness celebrated in Pericles’ oration.
Such idealized renderings of Athenian democracy serve a strategic populist purpose in the oration, reinforcing civic pride and unity during a time of war. By presenting Athens as the moral and political exemplar, Pericles seeks to justify the sacrifices he demands of its citizens (Hall, 2019). Yet this rhetorical strategy obscures the lived realities of those marginalized by the very system he celebrates. The oration’s omissions highlight how rhetoric constructs selective narratives which serve political objectives while obfuscating systemic inequalities.
Delivered to honor those who had perished in the first year of the Peloponnesian War, Pericles crafts a romanticized narrative portraying Athens as the paragon of civilization and suggests dying in service to the polis is the ultimate expression of human heroism. However, such selfless idealization of sacrifice presents ethical and philosophical questions about its role in shaping public sentiment toward war and peace. Pericles’ rhetoric not only masks the harsh realities of war but also functions as a tool for propagandistic manipulation, prioritizing state objectives over individual lives (Hall, 2019).
At the heart of Pericles’ oration is his exaltation of Athens as an exceptional polis, asserting its values justify the sacrifices of its citizens (Krause, 2019). “For the whole earth is the sepulcher of famous men” (Thucydides, 431 BCE) he proclaims, equating death for Athens with an eternal glory. By framing war as a noble endeavor, Pericles motivates a collective pride, positioning fallen soldiers as martyrs who exemplify the highest virtues of courage and selflessness. This idealization links personal sacrifice with a transcendent purpose, rendering war not as tragic necessity but as a pathway to immortality (Zarmakoupi, 2024).
Yet Pericles’ rhetoric obscures the devastating realities of war. Imagery of glory and eternal honor contrast sharply with the brutal, visceral suffering of soldiers and civilians. Thucydides later provides many subsequent counterpoints to the grandeur of the oration by juxtaposing it with grim accounts of battles, famine, and the plague which ravaged Athens. Such contrast highlights a dissonance between the ideals espoused in public rhetoric and the lived experience of those who experience war (Hall, 2019). By glorifying death in service to the state, Pericles encourages a desensitizing to the human cost of conflict, fostering a culture which valorizes war over peace.
Pericles’ emphasis on the unique virtues of Athens serves to galvanize support for the war effort, reinforcing a sense of superiority and justifying the propaganda for continued conflict with Sparta. It reflects a conscious attempt to mold public opinion, framing war as both inevitable and righteous. It asks Athenians to prioritize collective ideals over individual well-being, perpetuating a cycle of violence under a populist guise of patriotism we continue to see in modern politics (Hall, 2019). Such romanticization of sacrifice distorts perceptions of war, fostering uncritical acceptance of militaristic policies. While Pericles’ oration seeks to honor the fallen, it also functions as a strategic device to bolster public morale and strengthen political unity, but in doing so reduces citizens to mere instruments of state power, where the glorification of sacrifice seeks to suppress dissent and hinder the pursuit of peace.
The oration exemplifies the dual nature of war rhetoric. It inspires collective pride and unity while simultaneously obscuring the harsh realities of war. Portraying death for Athens as the ultimate heroism, Pericles elevates war to sacred status, but at the cost of critical reflection on its real-world consequences. This romanticization, while effective in its immediate purpose, invites scrutiny for its potential to manipulate public sentiment and prioritize the perpetuation of conflict over the cultivation of attitudes towards peace.
Figure 2: Wilhelm von Kaulbach, The Battle of Salamis (Die Seeschlacht bei Salamis) (1868)
Athens’ claim to military and moral preeminence is central to its cultural exceptionalism. Pericles’ populist narrative emphasizes singular Athenian contributions to the Persian Wars, contrasting decisive victories at Marathon and Salamis (Figure 2) with Spartan actions at Thermopylae. While Thermopylae is acknowledged as a sacrifice involving multiple Greek allies, Athens frames its own contributions as solitary and decisive (Krause, 2019). The oration asserts naval strength, led by Themistocles, not only saved Greece but also established Athens as the indispensable guarantor of Hellenic legacy. Such narrative strategically downplays the collaborative nature of Greek resistance against Persia, while elevating Athens' role and actively marginalizing other city-states’ contributions.
Equally significant is the political exceptionalism Pericles celebrates (Krause, 2019). Athenian democracy, characterized by equality before the law, meritocracy, and a division between public duty and private liberty, is presented as unparalleled in the Greek world. Pericles’ assertion that Athens “does not copy the institutions of [its] neighbors” (Thucydides, 431 BCE) underscores a belief in its singularity, with democracy portrayed as inherently superior to the oligarchic or monarchic systems of other polities. Yet such portrayal obscures the exclusionary nature of Athenian democracy, crafting a tension between Athens’ professed egalitarianism and the socio-political realities of its system.
Athenian exceptionalism also extends to its imperial claims. Pericles argues their empire arose not from conquest but from necessity and the consent of other city-states, and frames Athens as a protector of Greece, compelled to lead in the face of Spartan reluctance and Persian aggression. It positions Athens as benevolent authority, emphasizing its defensive origins and the compliant, voluntary alignment of allies (Krause, 2019). But such self-image obscures the coercive mechanisms Athens employed to maintain its empire, such as the harsh treatment of rebellious allies and the imposition of Delian League tribute. Dissonance between Athens’ rhetoric of just leadership and its imperial reality exposes the fragility of its self-proclaimed moral superiority.
Pericles’ oration also intertwines Athenian political virtues with a cultural openness, celebrating Athens as a cosmopolitan hub where “the good things from all over the world flow in” (Thucydides, 431 BCE). Such openness is framed as a hallmark of Athenian greatness, yet is juxtaposed with a call toward patriotic sacrifice (Qui, 2022). Demand for public virtue and military service underscores the highly conditional nature of Athenian freedoms, predicated on unwavering loyalty to the state. Ultimately, Athens’ claims of exceptionalism rely on selective historical framing and idealized self-representation (Krause, 2019). These claims serve to justify its hegemony, inspire civic unity, and contrast its polity with others. However, the contradictions of democracy and exclusion inherent in these claims, those of empire and benevolence, openness and coercion, underscore an ideological fragility within Athenian exceptionalism and reveal its function as both an aspirational ideal and a political tool.
Widely interpreted as embodying such Athenian ideals of democracy, the oration’s treatment of women further underscores inherent tensions within Athenian society regarding gender roles and public discourse. Bennett and Tyrrell argue Pericles’ advice to women, often reduced to a call for silence and invisibility, more accurately reflects the sociopolitical dynamics of 431BCE, particularly the demands of a domestic defensive strategy in the nascent Peloponnesian War (Bennett & Tyrrell, 1999). Far from merely upholding patriarchal ideological prescription, Pericles’ remarks reflect a pragmatic appeal to women’s cooperation within a societal framework deeply stratified by gendered expectation.
The oration’s call to women not to "fall short of their nature" and to maintain "great glory by attracting as little fame as possible" (Thucydides, 431 BCE) reads as an assertion of male dominance. However, Bennett and Tyrrell challenge such interpretation by emphasizing the critical societal functions women performed, particularly in mourning the dead, and their critical importance in Athenian cultural and religious practice (Bennett & Tyrrell, 1999). Such rites were vital to the rituals of lamentation which bridged the living and the dead, ensuring proper transition of souls and maintaining the social fabric of the polis. As such, Bennett and Tyrrell argue female participation in funerary rites was indispensable for communal cohesion.
Historical and political context further illuminate Pericles’ advice. At the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, his strategy of withdrawing Athenians behind city walls disrupted traditional notions of masculinity tied to land ownership and defense, as Athenian men faced accusations of cowardice, potentially exacerbating tensions through women’s lamentations and reproach. Bennett and Tyrrell suggest Pericles’ guidance aimed to mitigate these tensions by channeling women’s emotional expressions into forms which supported rather than undermined Athenian collective morale (Bennett & Tyrrell, 1999). His call for moderation in mourning, neither excessive lamentation nor neglect, sought to balance societal need for grief (Zarmakoupi, 2024) with the practical demands of maintaining the unity and resolve required to fight the war.
Bennett and Tyrrell also contend the oration’s treatment of women reflects broader anxieties about their public visibility. Female voices, particularly in lamentation, held a subversive power capable of challenging male authority. By advising women to avoid public recognition, Pericles may have sought to preclude their laments from augmenting divisions within the city or provoking impulsive actions among men (Bennett & Tyrrell, 1999). However, Bennett and Tyrrell argue this strategy reveals implicit acknowledgment of women’s influence, even as it attempts to curtail their agency. And while it liberally reinforces male dominance, it also exposes the essential roles women played in Athenian society and the challenges of reconciling their contributions with the virtuous demands of patriarchal political order (Bennett & Tyrrell, 1999).
But what of Athenian virtue itself? These virtues remain ambiguously defined throughout the oration, leaving precise interpretation open to interpretation. While rhetorically advantageous, such ambiguity risks turning these ideals into malleable tools for political purpose rather than steadfast ethical principles (Qui, 2022).
Pericles frames Athenian courage as a defining virtue, contrasting it with the militaristic discipline of Sparta. Declaring, “we throw ourselves into action not after careful calculation, but on the strength of our own courage” (Thucydides, 431 BCE) and portraying Athenian bravery as spontaneous and rooted in freedom rather than fear or coercion. Similarly, he extols Athenian freedom, emphasizing equality of citizens under the law and liberal tolerance of diverse lifestyles, coupled with Athens’ intellectual and cultural achievements, asserting that its citizens “cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy” (Thucydides, 431 BCE).
And while these virtues are celebrated, their definition remain vague. Pericles does not specify what constitutes true courage or how it distinguishes from recklessness. Conception of freedom is similarly ambiguous, conflating a political equality with personal liberty without addressing the systemic exclusion of women, slaves, and metics. Intellectual prowess is celebrated, but its relationship to practical governance or moral judgment left unexplored. Such obfuscation masks if virtues are ethical imperatives, civic ideals, or simply rhetorical constructs designed to enhance Athens’ image, propelling manipulation of these ideals to serve shifting political objectives (Qui, 2022). Courage is presented as a civic virtue which justifies sacrifice for the polis. However, its undefined nature makes it susceptible to being used to also glorify aggressive military campaigns or dismiss dissent as cowardice. Similarly, the ideal of freedom, so central to Athenian democracy, can be co-opted to obscure the exclusionary realities of the Athenian system. Intellectual brilliance, while also celebrated, risks being used to justify elitism or cultural chauvinism rather than fostering genuine enlightenment (Qui, 2022).
Such ambiguous rhetorical flexibility reflects Pericles’ strategic intent, but also potentially injects Thucydides’ own thoughts on what he chose to transcribe (Hall, 2019). By leaving these virtues undefined, both Thucydides and Pericles ensure they can be adapted to suit the needs of moments to come, whether to rally citizens during war or to assert Athens’ moral superiority over its rivals. However, this approach undermines their application as ethical principles, raising questions about the sincerity and sustainability of Athenian ideals. Thucydides’ subsequent broader narrative, which chronicles episodes of internal discord and ultimately moral decline in Athens, underscores the dangers of treating such virtues as rhetorical tools rather than guiding values (Qui, 2022).
By idealizing unity and ignoring discord, Pericles presents a sanitized vision of Athenian society in a way which Thucydides does not, obscuring tensions which undermined its democracy and contributed to its eventual instability. The oration extols Athens as a city where all citizens have equal access to justice and political participation. He declares, “Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves” (Thucydides, 431 BCE) emphasizing Athens as exemplary democracy. Athens as a harmonious and egalitarian society reinforces the idea that collective unity, supported by democratic institutions, underpins its greatness. Pericles’ rhetoric positions Athens as a city where internal harmony allows for external strength, particularly in its military and cultural achievement (Hall, 2019).
However, this idealized image omits the internal inequalities and struggles which characterized Athenian society. While Pericles speaks of equality, the reality of Athenian democracy was more complex. Political participation was predicated upon exclusion which created a highly stratified hierarchical society where power and privilege were concentrated in the hands of a minority, of which Pericles himself was part (Hall, 2019). Similarly, historian Ian Morris argues “in Thucydides' account of the funeral oration delivered by Pericles in 431/0 B.c., we are told simply that no one should be ashamed of being poor; but Demosthenes repeatedly reminded juries that wealth bred hubris, an arrogance which poisoned social relations. Nothing was such good evidence of the presence of hubris as deliberate displays of wealth” (Morris, 1992). Economic disparities between wealthy aristocrats and poorer citizens were further a source of significant tension. The omission of these internal struggles from the oration is not an oversight but a strategic rhetorical choice. By focusing on the ideals of unity and harmony, Pericles seeks to inspire collective pride and commitment toward the war effort to come. Acknowledging the internal conflicts which plagued Athens would risk undermining this message, exposing vulnerabilities which could weaken morale. Yet, this rhetorical strategy comes at a cost. Ignoring these tensions prevents an honest reckoning with the structural issues destabilizing Athenian democracy, such as the disenfranchisement of marginalized groups.
Pericles’ omission of internal struggles serves to mask the fragility of Athenian society entering into a prolonged period of war. Thucydides himself provides a broader narrative which contrasts with the idealism of the oration, documenting episodes of civil strife and corruption which exposed the limits of Athenian democracy. The growing influence of wealthy elites within the democratic framework threatened the equality Pericles celebrated, while economic pressures on poorer citizens fueled dissatisfaction and unrest. These tensions, left unaddressed in Pericles’ speech, highlight stark gaps between Athenian ideals and reality.
While the oration offers an inspiring vision of Athens as a harmonious and unified democracy, it does so at the expense of acknowledging its internal struggles. This omission risks romanticizing Athenian society and obscuring the social and economic tensions which later destabilized its democracy. By motivating an overly harmonious image, Pericles’ speech overlooks the complexities of Athenian society, offering an idealized vision which fails to account for the structural inequality and conflict shaping its political landscape.
Pericles’ oration serves as both inspiring rhetorical masterpiece and reflection of Athenian identity. However, its idealized portrayal of democracy, war, and societal harmony raises critical concerns about its sincerity and relevance. Pericles celebrates Athens as the exemplar of freedom, equality, and cultural excellence, yet his speech fails to address systemic exclusions, the harsh realities of war, and internal social tensions, revealing tension between the ideals he celebrates and the lived experience of Athenian society.
Presenting Athens as a beacon of equality and justice, but to the exclusion of women, slaves, and metics from political participation (Bennett & Tyrrell, 1999), undermines such claims. This selective definition of democracy highlights conflict between Athens’ egalitarian ideals and its hierarchical structure. The populist glorification of sacrifice in war masks brutal human cost, romanticizing death as a pathway to eternal honor while neglecting the suffering of soldiers and civilians (Hall, 2019). Pericles’ rhetoric functions as propaganda, using idealized narratives to unify and inspire citizens while obscuring inconvenient truths. The oration also perpetuates Athenian exceptionalism (Krause, 2019), portraying Athens as unique in its military prowess, democratic governance, and cultural openness. Such self-image is again built on selective historical framing, marginalizing the contributions of other Greek city-states and downplaying the coercive aspects of Athenian imperialism. Pericles’ omission of internal struggles such as economic inequality and class conflict sanitizes Athenian society, presenting an image of harmony which contrasts with historical accounts of discord.
The oration is both celebration of Athenian greatness and testament to the power of rhetoric. While it powerfully inspires civic pride, its omissions and contradictions surface complex realities of Athenian democracy and the contentious interplay between ideology and political strategy.
References:
Bennett, L.J & Tyrrell, W. (1999). Pericles' Muting of Women's Voices in Thucydides 2.45.2. The Classical Journal , Oct. - Nov., 1999, Vol. 95, No. 1 (Oct. - Nov., 1999), pp. 37-51. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3298233.
Hall, E. (2019). The Greatest Speech of all Time: Pericles' Funeral Oration. Gresham College YouTube Channel. [Video File]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzpRgD4H8V4.
Krause, P. (2019). Athenian Exceptionalism and Pericles’ Funeral Oration. Discourses on Minerva. Retrieved from: https://minervawisdom.com/2019/02/27/athenian-exceptionalism-and-pericles-funeral-oration/.
Morris, I. (1992). Taking it with you: Grave goods and Athenian democracy (Chapter 4). Death ritual and social structure in classical antiquity. Cambridge University Press.
Qui, F. (2022). Does Thucydides Portray Pericles as Good or Bad for Athens’ Democracy? Atlantis Press. Retrieved from: https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icpahd-21/125969431.
Thucydides. (431 BCE). Pericles’ Funeral Oration. Book 2. 34-46. in The History of the Peloponnesian War. Penguin Classics (1972).
Zarmakoupi, M. (2024). Video 5.1. Necropolis and tombs in the ancient world. [Video File]. Retrieved from: https://canvas.upenn.edu/courses/1810630/modules/items/30711713.
