ty is final for the 4th century only, and that we are not
justified in arguing from the practice of the 4th century to that of the
5th, unless corroborative evidence is available. In the First Part,
however, where he is treating of the institutions and practice of a past
age, Aristotle's authority is very far from being final. An analysis of
this part of the work discloses his dependence, in a remarkable degree,
upon his sources. Occasionally he compares, criticizes or combines; as a
rule he adheres closely to the writer whom he is using. There is no
evidence, either of independent inquiry, or of the utilization of other
sources than literary ones. Where "original documents" are quoted, or
referred to, as e.g. in the history of the Four Hundred, or of the
Thirty, it is probable that he derived them from a previous writer. For
the authority of Aristotle we must substitute, therefore, the authority
of his sources; i.e. the value of any particular statement will vary
with the character of the source from which it comes. For the history of
the 5th century the passages which come from Androtion's _Atthis_ carry
with them a high degree of authority. It by no means follows, however,
that a statement relating to earlier times is to be accepted simply
because it is derived from the same source. And in passages which are
derived from other sources than the _Atthis_ a much lower degree of
authority can be claimed, even for statements relating to the 5th
century. The supremacy of the Areopagus after the Persian Wars, the
policy attributed to Aristides (c. 24), and the association of
Themistocles with Ephialtes, are cases in point. Nor must the reader
expect to find in the _Constitution_ a great work, in any sense of the
term. The style, it is true, is simple and clear, and the writer's
criticisms are sensible. But the reader will look in vain for evidence
of the philosophic insight which makes the _Politics_, even at the
present day, the best text-book of political philosophy. It is perhaps
hardly too much to say that there is not a single great idea in the
whole work. He will look in vain, too, for any consistent view of the
history of the constitution as a whole, or for any adequate account of
its development. He will find occasional misunderstandings of measures,
and confusions of thought. There are appreciations which it is difficult
to accept, and inaccuracies which it is difficult to pardon. There are
contradictions which the a