Not as Clear as it Seems

There have been a few references (such as Nathan B.'s post) to the fact that this piece that we have read contains two authors to analyze and falls under one specific branch of oratory. Although this may be true on the surface, given that Pericles is technically giving a dialogue, I would move to say that there really is only one author that is speaking. The author who is writing the history, Thucydides. In order to establish his credibility with his audience (which includes centuries of readers), or his ethos, he states that has, “described nothing but what I either saw myself, or learned from others of whom I made the most careful and particular inquiry.” He wants to make sure that those who read his work in the future know that he has credible sources. But we come to find later in a short background of the oratory that this was the case but with an interesting twist on it. He states, “I have...put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I 

endeavored, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said.” We learn that what appears to be the words of Pericles, is actually just what Thucydides thought he would say, doing the best he could to include his given sources. Although in my eyes his intentions for doing so are not clear, it seems to be the case the Thucydides is actually doing most of the talking. One idea of a motivation is that he desired for individuals in the future to be educated on the past so they are not doomed to repeat it. If this is the case, it could be difficult to identify what branch of oratory this piece belongs to. Because it is in the form of an Epidictic piece, could it be classified as such? Or because Thucydides desires for individuals of the future to not repeat the past (and therefore accusing those of the past) could it be classified as Judicial? Perhaps you could go as far as to classify it as Legislative. Although there is not deliberation regarding policy in the future, it could be argued that the authors intentions were to influence future generations and the way THEY created policy and therefore could be classified as Legislative. I don’t think the answer is clear, and that is exactly my point. It is not as easy as it appears to classify a piece such as this into one specific branch of oratory as others may suggest.