246 James Roy
This bald summary does not do justice to the play, but it brings out some of its complex-
ities. On the one hand, as portrayed by Ion, Athenian autochthony is bitterly exclusive,
but on the other Athens must accept outsiders, notably Xouthos (Zacharia 2003: 100–2).
The two clearly autochthonous Athenians in the play, Ion and Kreousa, behave very badly
to each other. The play also raises the question of Athens’ relationship to Ionia. It has
been suggested that, in the earlier fifth century, Athens sought to distance itself from the
Ionians, and that the autochthony myth provided a convenient alternative to an Ionian
origin for Athens (Hall 1997: 53–6). Certainly, according to the play’s dénouement,
the descendants of Ion are to colonize Ionia, shifting Athens’s relationship with Ionia
from common Ionian identity to colonizer and colonies. Zacharia (2003: 45–6) argues,
however, that this is not a complete denial of Athens’ own Ionian identity, which is
also shown in the play. Overall, the play, however its complexities are interpreted, seems
to draw attention to the tensions inherent in autochthony without subverting Athens’
autochthonous identity. In fact, Athenians thought in different ways about autochthony
in different contexts, tragedy in particular allowing an examination of doubts or ques-
tions, while at other times autochthony was simply accepted or, in the funeral speeches,
glorified (Pelling 2009: 475–6, 482–3).
Occasionally, difficulties were simply ignored. It was, for instance, generally believed
that, in the late sixth century, Kleisthenes had enfranchised a significant number of
non-Athenians who had entered Peisistratid Athens as immigrants (Aristotle Pol.
1275B34-9, on which see Rhodes 1981: 255–6), and of course Athens continued
occasionally to grant citizenship to outsiders; however, the presence within the citizen
body of such incomers had no visible effect on the belief in common autochthonous
ancestry. The body of Athenian citizens was evidently conceived as a continuing heredi-
tary group, regardless of known incomers (Blok 2009a: 263–4). Autochthony was also
exclusive, marking the Athenians off from other Greeks: the citizenship law of 451/0
institutionalized the same difference. The recent study by Lape (2010) emphasizes
this exclusiveness. (Also, see Gotteland [2001] on how the origins of other Greek
cities were treated in Athenian oratory.) The degree of exclusiveness could, however,
be varied to suit the occasion. One issue was the relationship between Athens and the
Ionians, discussed in the preceding text, and related to that was the question of how
reputable colonies could be since they were necessarily communities of immigrants,
precisely what an autochthonous community prided itself on not being (see Orth 2006).
Athenians continued to be Greeks in a Greek world and appealed to Panhellenism
whenever they felt it appropriate, as did Isocrates in hisPanegyricus(4). Athenians could
also choose either to recognize or to ignore the autochthony of other Greek states.
Thus, Isocrates in thePanathenaicus(12.124) says that the Athenians were “neither of
mixed origin nor immigrants, but alone of the Greeks autochthonous.” Demosthenes,
inDe Falsa Legatione(19.261), says that the Arkadians and the Athenians were the
only autochthonous peoples in Greece, but in hisFuneral Speech(60.4) claims that
the Athenians are the autochthonous inhabitants of the shared fatherland and alone
of all men have inhabited the land from which they were born and handed it down to
their descendants. While the basic belief in Athens’ autochthony was maintained, its
expression could be adjusted to suit circumstances.