I was once asked to study and discuss the opposing views of Athens that Thucydides presents in “The Funeral Oration of Pericles” and “The Dialogue of Melian.” When I began to study the matter, I wondered why he presented such contrasting points of view. A focused reading of Thucydides’ “Funeral Oration of Pericles” and “The Dialogue of Melian” uncovers two obviously contrasting views of the ancient city of Athens. The former, being a funeral oration, portrayed Athens as the model city-state, worthy of emulation, while the latter paints the less rosy picture of arrogant Athenian military aggression.

I believe that one of the keys to understanding this contrast is in the following part of the funeral oration:

“For there is justice in the statement that constancy in your country’s battles should be like a cloak to cover a man’s other imperfections; since the good deed has blotted out the bad, and his merit as a citizen far exceeded his demerits as an individual.” (Thucydides 3)

Thucydides shows each side of the operation of this ‘cloak’ in these two pieces. As fallen war heroes are eulogized before the city in “Pericles’ Funeral Oration”, their brave actions, typical of any Athenian, are justified and extolled as he describes the four ‘habits’ that have seen Athens achieve and maintain such greatness. . These habits the young orator Pericles, son of Xanthippus, rhetorically identifies as the cause of Athens’ success: “But what was the road by which we came to our position, what was the form of government under which our greatness grew, what was the national power”. clothing from which it sprouted;” (Thucydides 2) Athens is thus presented as a prototype city.

“The Melian Dialogue”, however, reveals what blemishes and demerits lurk beneath their habits and victories. In these two pieces we see Athens, the virtuous city and Athens, the neighborhood bully. The steadfastness and sacrificial courage of the fallen soldiers contrast with the aggressive colonialism of Athens. Certainly, Athens was a city to be envied, but perhaps it was not as virtuous as it appeared to its own eyes.

Beginning on page two of the translation of “Pericles’ Funeral Oration,” Pericles, son of Xantipos, describes four habits that have resulted in the success of Athens. Being these: its laws, its balance of work and pleasure, its military policy, and lastly, and its high culture. A brief sample of each of the texts will suffice here.

The first habit consists of the higher laws and government of Athens. The Athenians were proud that their constitution did not copy the laws of neighboring states; they were more like Their administration favored the majority over the minority and they felt that was why it was a democracy. Looking at their laws, they found that they accorded equal justice to all men.

Next, the leisurely pleasures that Athens provided its citizens were vital to its success. They provided many means for the mind and body to refresh from the stress of business. They held games and sacrifices throughout the year, and the elegance of their many private establishments formed a daily source of pleasure for the Athenians.

Continuing, the military might of Athens was an important aspect of their society. “If we resort to our military policy, that is also where we differ from our antagonists. We open our city to the world, and never by strange acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity to learn or observe…” (Thucydides 2). Interestingly, Pericles positions Athens as the protagonist who simply fends off the ‘antagonists’. Later, he also uses the word raiders. This time, he admits that Athens herself also plays the role of antagonist, “For Athens is the only one of her contemporaries who, when put to the test, is superior to her reputation, and is the only one who does not give her aggressors a chance to be ashamed of the antagonist”. those who have defeated…” (Thucydides 3)

Finally, the culture of Athens was very sophisticated. “These are not the only points in which our city is worthy of admiration. We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; we employ wealth more for use than for display… Our public men have, in addition to politics, their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though busy with their activities, remain just judges of public affairs”. (Thucydides 3)

Far from the best and proud citizens of Athens, Thucydides directs our attention to the front lines in “The Melian Dialogue.” Here we see a glimpse of what Pericles would never share with the distinguished citizens of Athens. In a nutshell, the Athenians came to the island of Metos to enslave or kill the Melians.

The first glimpse behind his honorable mantle of steadfastness in his country’s battles is the magnitude of his army. They overwhelmed the Melians with a show of force. The Athenians also made an expedition against the island of Melos with thirty ships of their own; sixteen hundred heavy infantry, three hundred archers and twenty horse archers from Athens, and about fifteen hundred heavy infantry from the allies and from the islanders. They intended to force the Melians into servitude. This is in stark contrast to “We open our city to the world, and never by strange acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity to learn or observe…” (Thucydides 1)

In reality, the royal mindset of the Athenians viewed the Melians as inferior. They saw them as islanders and weaker than the others, making it all the more crucial that they fail to defeat “the masters of the sea”. (Thucydides 2) In the remainder of this lecture, the Athenians scoff at the Melians’ hope, strength, and even trust in the gods. This is the ugly side of Athens. Perhaps the fifth habit responsible for Athens’ success was her aggressive military conquests.

Why did Thucydides present such contrasting views in a simple funeral oration and in “The Melian Dialogue”?

No doubt he was privy to much of the inner workings of Athenian politics, scandal, and hypocrisy. He wanted the wild nature of Athens’ success to be seen and judged in the same light as her best attributes. He wanted to expose the realities that came with a democracy that favored the many over the few. He understood the dangers of elevating the beloved and hidden ‘imperfections’ of the state at the expense of human life and dignity. He wanted his readers to understand these things as well.