It was through autochthony that the Athenians integrated democratic ideologies into the pre-existing framework of their society, allowing the acceptance of the radical new system of government. The myth created a populace that was proud to be Athenian. It was crucial in justifying to Athenians the equality between social strata which was inherent to democracy, while still maintaining the exclusion of foreigners and women. Equally important to the success of the democracy was Athen’s growing dominance over its neighbours, facilitated in part by autochthony. The myth provided an ideological basis on which the Athenian brand of democracy could grow, as well as the tangible power which allowed it to flourish.…show more content… As has been established, the myth clearly defines an equality between the Athenian people. A logical extension of this philosophy is that each Athenian should have an equal say in the matters of government. Plato went as far as to suggest it was their equality of birth which compelled Athenians by nature to seek democracy (Plato Menexenus 238e). To agree with this assertion, would be to accept that autochthony was not only beneficial to the foundation of democracy, but crucial. It is no stretch, to suggest that it was the myth which enabled Athens to implement democracy, while its neighbours who traced their ancestors to immigrants, were content under an oligarchical system of rule. Without the widespread belief in equality of birth, the leaders of neighbouring cities could claim some superiority over the common people, and hence easily justify their position of power. This is perhaps the primary factor differentiating Athens from its neighbours in the establishment of democracy, the city’s rulers could not rely on birth alone to maintain leadership. The autochthony myth was a key factor in the Athenian’s unwillingness to live under the rule of who they believed to be their equals, and the subsequent in establishment of…show more content… In order for ethnic Athenians to maintain complete control of their city in a democratic system, measures had to be taken to prevent those considered to be less Athenian than acceptable, from voting. The changing of criteria for citizenship by Pericles was one such measure (Plutarch Pericles 37.2), providing evidence that this was an issue of legitimate concern for some citizens. Another measure to prevent the participation of foreigners in democracy was social exclusion. Euripides wrote that “even if he is a citizen in name, his mouth remains a slave: he has no right of speech” (Euripides Ion 670) in reference to a foreigners experience inAthens. This conveys how effectively outsiders were suppressed by the Athenian people, not so much by the formal laws, but by the inherent xenophobia that accompanied autochthony. Athenian assurance of their own purity and superiority was so firmly entrenched in the psyche of Athenians by autochthony, that the social exclusion of foreigners was natural. Certainly Plato was adamant that “The nobility and freedom of our city is so firm and sound and also naturally barbarian / hating, because we are pure Greeks and unmixed with Barbarians” (Plato Menexenus 245c–d). This strong dislike of non-Athenians
