_For._--(i.) The consensus of antiquity. Every ancient writer who mentions the _Constitution_ attributes it to Aristotle, while no writer is known to have questioned its genuineness. (ii.) The coincidence of the date assigned to its composition on internal grounds with the date of Aristotle's second residence in Athens. (iii.) Parallelisms of thought or expression with passages in the _Politics_; e.g. c. 16. 2 and 3 compared with _Pol._ 1318 b 14 and 1319 a 30; the general view of Solon's legislation compared with _Pol._ 1296 b 1; c. 27. 3 compared with _Pol._ 1274 a 9. To argument (i.) against the authorship, it is replied that the _Constitution_ is an historical work, intended for popular use; differences in style and terminology from those of a philosophical treatise, such as the _Politics_, are to be expected. To argument (ii.) it is replied that, as the _Constitution_ is a later work than the _Politics_, a change of view upon particular points is not surprising. These considerations have led the great majority of writers upon the subject to attribute the work to Aristotle himself. On this side are found Kenyon and Sandys among English scholars, and in Germany, Wilamowitz, Blass, Gilbert, Bauer, Bruno Keil, Busolt, E. Meyer, and many others. On the whole, it can hardly be doubted that the view which is supported by so great a weight of authority is the correct one. The arguments advanced on the other side are not to be lightly set aside, but they can scarcely outweigh the combination of external and internal evidence in favour of the attribution to Aristotle. An attentive study of the parallel passages in the _Politics_ will go a long way towards carrying conviction. It is true that a series such as the _Constitutions_ might well be entrusted to pupils working under the direction of their master. It is also true, however, that the _Constitution of Athens_ must have been incomparably the most important of the series and the one that would be most naturally reserved for the master's hand. There are no traces in the treatise either of variety of authorship or of incompleteness, though there are evidences of interpolation. _Contents._--The treatise consists of two parts, one historical, and the other descriptive. The first forty-one chapters compose the former part, the remainder of the work the latter. The first part comprised an account of the original constitution of Athens, and of the eleven changes through which it successively passed (see c. 41). The papyrus, however, is imperfect at the beginning (the manuscript from which it was copied appears to have been similarly defective), the text commencing in the middle of a sentence which relates to the trial and banishment of the Alcmeonidae for their part in the affair of Cylon. The missing chapters must have contained a sketch of the original constitution, and of the changes introduced in the time of Ion and Theseus.