_Against._--(i.) The occurrence of non-Aristotelian words and phrases and the absence of turns of expression characteristic of the undisputed writings of Aristotle. (ii.) The occurrence of statements contradictory of views found in the _Politics_; e.g. c. 4 (Constitution of Draco) compared with _Pol._ 1274 b 15 ([Greek: Drakontos nomoi men eisi, politeia d' hyparchouse tous nomous etheken]); c. 8. 1 (the archons appointed by lot out of selected candidates) compared with _Pol._ 1274 a 17, and 1281 b 31 (the archons elected by the _demos_); c. 17. 1 (total length of Peisistratus' reign, 19 years) compared with _Pol._ 1315 b 32 (total length, 17 years); c. 21. 6 (Cleisthenes left the clan and phratries unaltered) compared with _Pol._ 1319 b 20 (Cleisthenes increased the number of the phratries); c. 21. 2 and 4 compared with _Pol._ 1275 b 37 (different views as to the class admitted to citizenship by Cleisthenes). It will be observed that the instances quoted relate to the most famous names in the early history of Athens, viz. Draco, Solon, Peisistratus and Cleisthenes. (iii.) Arguments drawn from the style, composition and general character of the work, which are alleged to be unworthy of the author of the undoubtedly genuine writings. There is no sense of proportion (contrast the space devoted to Peisistratus and his sons, or to the Four Hundred and the Thirty, with the inadequate treatment of the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars); there is a lack of historical insight and an uncritical acceptance of erroneous views; and the anecdotic element is unduly prominent. These considerations led several of the earlier critics to deny the Aristotelian authorship, e.g. the editors of the Dutch edition of the text, van Herwerden and van Leeuwen; Ruehl, Cauer and Schvarcz in Germany; H. Richards and others in England.