Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T03:15:44.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Funeral Speech, A Study of Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

P. Walcot
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since no one doubts the pre-eminence of Socrates as a teacher, there is much, presumably, to be said in favour of his method of instruction. The picture of Socrates to be gained from the earlier dialogues of Plato is one of a man who consistently challenged orthodox opinions. In the same way, but, of course, with nothing like the Athenian's skill, I propose in what follows to react against a commonly accepted view; to be precise, I wish to scrutinize the opinion that the Funeral Speech, delivered by Pericles at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War and known to us from Thucydides, presents the reader with a splendid portrait of fifth-century Athens, and that, in stressing the spirit rather than the forms of Athenian democracy, it qualifies as the ancient equivalent of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. We all idealize the ancient Greeks; we ignore the harsh realities and prefer to concentrate our attention on what we see as the grandeur of Aeschylus, the splendour of the Parthenon, and the vision of Pericles; and it is the Funeral Speech, beyond everything else in Greek literature, which allows us to indulge in this type of escapism. That the Funeral Speech does have a ‘glorious’ reputation is a fact. Does it deserve so uncritical a fame ? If this question is posed, I ask it not from any perverted desire to debunk its reputation, but simply in order to gain a deeper understanding not only of the speech but also of the Greeks to whom it was addressed and of the particular statesman who delivered it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , October 1973 , pp. 111 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 111 note 1 Such a comparison is made, for example, by Finley, J. H., Thucydides (Cambridge, Mass., 1942), 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 112 note 1 Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, ii (Oxford, 1956), 143Google Scholar; Ehrenberg, Victor, From Solon to Socrates (London, 1968), 263.Google Scholar

page 112 note 2 This opinion has become less and less fashionable with the passage of time; note the change of mind registered by Adcock, F. E., Thucydides and his History (Cambridge, 1963), 36–7.Google Scholar

page 112 note 3 Thus, in commenting on the speech, Burn, A. R., Pericles and Athens (London, 1948), 223Google Scholar, claims that Athenian and Ionian women were kept ‘almost in “purdah”’.

page 113 note 1 Full details of the controversy, together with bibliography, are to be found in de Wit-Tak, T. M., Lysistrata, Vrede, Vrouw en Obsceniteit bij Aristophanes (Groningen, 1967), 29 ff.Google Scholar Some indication of the course of the discussion may be gained by comparing Wright, F. A., Feminism in Greek Literature from Homer to Aristotle (London, 1923)Google Scholar, the article on the position of women by Wright in the first edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (1949), and the new article by W. K. Lacey in the second edition (1970).

page 113 note 2 Lacey, , The Family in Classical Greece (London, 1968), 176.Google Scholar

page 114 note 1 Bowra, C. M., Periclean Athens (London, 1971), 193.Google Scholar

page 114 note 2 Kitto, H. D. F., The Greeks (Pelican Book), 224.Google Scholar

page 114 note 3 See especially the essays published in Peristiany, J. G. (ed.), Honour and Shame, the Values of Mediterranean Society (London, 1965).Google Scholar

page 116 note 1 I quote the translation by Jones, A. H. M., Athenian Democracy (Oxford, 1957), 45 and 48.Google Scholar

page 117 note 1 See Gomme, op. cit. 103–4Google Scholar, and Walcot, , Greek Peasants, Ancient and Modern, a Comparison of Social and Moral Values (Manchester, 1970), 82 ff.Google Scholar For envy in general, see Foster, G. M., Current Anthropology xiii (1972), 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 119 note 1 Especially relevant is the study of social ranking in a French Alpine community by Susan Hutson, and of reputation in an Austrian village by M. A. Heppenstall, both of which appear in Bailey, F. G. (ed.), Gifts and Poison, the Politics of Reputation (Oxford, 1971), 41 ff. and 139 ff.Google Scholar

page 120 note 1 Compare John Hutson's account of the career of a politician in the village in the French Alps referred to in the preceeding note (Bailey, , op. cit. 69–96).Google Scholar If a person appears to be superior to others because of his personal wealth or political influence, equality may be restored because of what Susan Hutson terms ‘the diversity of ranking criteria’, a man's moral character most commonly being cited to minimize the prestige conferred by his material attributes (see Bailey, , op. cit. 47–9).Google Scholar One thinks at once of the treatment of politicians in the comedies of Aristophanes and a comment by Dover, K. J., Aristophanic Comedy (London, 1972), 35Google Scholar: ‘It seems to be the business of comedy to grumble and slander, and to speak fair of a politician or general would have been discordant with its function as a means by which the ordinary man asserts himself against his political or military superiors.’ See also Foster, , American Anthropologist lxvii (1965), 305Google Scholar, who, speaking of the ‘peasant’, says: ‘The ideal man strives for moderation and equality in his behavior. Should he attempt to better his comparative standing, thereby threatening village stability, the informal and usually unorganized sanctions appear … and it takes the form of gossip, slander, back-biting, character assassination, witchcraft or the threat of witchcraft, and sometimes actual physical aggression.’ Compare Foster, , Current Anthropology xiii (1972), 185.Google Scholar

page 120 note 2 Bailey, , op. cit. 42 and 46.Google Scholar

page 120 note 3 Ibid. 150–1. See also the various cases cited by Heppenstall, , 155, 160–6.Google Scholar

page 120 note 4 Cutileiro, José, A Portuguese Rural Society (Oxford, 1971), 107.Google Scholar

page 121 note 1 The author wishes to acknowledge with gratitude the helpful comments and criticisms made by three colleagues, Dr. John Percival, D. E. Hill, and N. R. E. Fisher, while his article was in preparation.

Since this paper was written two articles have appeared which discuss the position of Athenian women, and more material on the subject is promised in a forthcoming issue of the journal Arethusa. Richter, Donald C., Classical Journal lxvii, 1 (10–11 1971), 1–8Google Scholar, argues along the right lines but fails to appreciate the true cause of ‘husbandly jealousy’ on the part of Athenian males; however chaste a woman, she would still be regarded with more than a little suspicion. R. Flacelière, Académic des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1971, 698–706, is totally unconvincing in developing the ‘French’ theory that the era of the Peloponnesian War witnessed the growth of a feminist movement, a theory which allows Pericles' comment on women to be thought evidence for a corresponding conservative reaction.