necdotes, which are a conspicuous feature in the _Constitution_, should
be referred to the same source is more open to doubt. It is also
generally agreed that among the sources was a work, written towards the
end of the 5th century B.C., by an author of oligarchical sympathies,
with the object of defaming the character and policy of the heroes of
the democracy. This source can be traced in passages such as c. 6. 2
(Solon turning the Seisachtheia to the profit of himself and his
friends), 9. 2 (obscurity of Solon's laws intentional, cf. c. 35. 2),
27. 4 (Pericles' motive for the introduction of the dicasts' pay). But
while the object ([Greek: oi boulomenoi blasphemein], c. 6) and the date
of this oligarchical pamphlet (for the date cf. Plutarch's _Solon_, c.
15 [Greek: oi peri Konona kai Kleinian kai Hipponikon], which points to
a time when Conon, Alcibiades and Callias were prominent in public life)
are fairly certain, the authorship is quite uncertain, as is also its
relationship to another source of importance, viz. that from which are
derived the accounts of the Four Hundred and the Thirty. The view taken
of the character and course of these revolutions betrays a strong bias
in favour of Theramenes, whose ideal is alleged to have been the [Greek:
patrios politeia]. It has been maintained, on the one hand, that this
last source (the authority followed in the accounts of the Four Hundred
and the Thirty) is identical with the oligarchical pamphlet, and, on the
other, that it is none other than the _Atthis_ of Androtion. The former
hypothesis is improbable. In favour of the latter two arguments may be
adduced. In the first place, Androtion's father, Andron, was one of the
Four Hundred, and took Theramenes' side. Secondly, the precise marks of
time, which are characteristic of the _Atthis_, are conspicuous in these
chapters. In view, however, of the fact that Androtion in his political
career showed himself not only a democrat, but a democrat of the extreme
school, the hypothesis must be pronounced untenable.

_Value._--It is by no means easy to convey a just impression of the
value of Aristotle's work as an authority for the constitutional history
of Athens. In all that relates to the practice of his own day
Aristotle's authority is final. There can be no question, therefore, as
to the importance, or the trustworthy character, of the Second Part. But
even here a caution is necessary. It must be remembered that its
authori