86 Karl Hude: “The evidence of ancient authorities as to the authorship of the Πολιτεῖαι᾽, and shows, what a prominent part the ᾿4ϑηναίων πολιτεία plays even from A.s younger contemporary Philochorus down to Eustathius (f about 1200 A.D.), especially in the great centres of learning, such as Alexandria and Constantinople; as to Plutarch, whose first-hand use of the work has been doubted, our editor adduces two striking examples of tacit quotation from the 4. πολ. in the pages of this author: 40. πολ. 14, 4 οἵ. Plut. Sol. 3, 5 and 249. πολ. 5, 2 cf. Plut Amatorius 18, 14. The three following chapters treat of ‘The later literature of the ]Πολιτεῖαι, “The Berlin fragments of the 249. πολ. and ‘The British Museum papyrus’; in the last of these Mr. Sandys agrees with Kenyon and Blass (against Kaibel and v. Wilamowitz) in stating four different hands and strengthens this statement by classifying the abbreviations in use. In chapter VII the date of the original composition is briefly fixed between B. C. 328 and 325, and then the two principal points of the attacks on its genuineness are dealt with: the relations to the Π]ολιτικά and the language and style of the work. Mr. Sandys is right in repudiating Cauer’s attempt to make the work suspected on the basis of chapter 41 § 2, which is, on the contrary, in perfect accord with Joli 1286 a (cf. my paper in Forh. på det 4de nord. Filologmøde p. 101), and the author aptly draws the attention to a great ressemblance in thought and language between 4. π. ch. 16 and one particular portion of the Π]|ολιτικά. I have been astonished to see Mr. Sandys express the opinion that ‘the restoration of the democracy is described in dispassionate and unenthusiastic terms’; if there is any place where Aristotle’s admiration for the Athenians shows itself in warmer expressions, it ought to be here. The paragraphs on the language and style of the work are decidedly convincing; for instance, it is rightly accentuated that ‘there is less scope for a multiplicity of particles, οὐ of illative conjunctions, in a consecutive exposition of constitutional history and antiquities, than in the course of a philosophie discussion’. When Mr. Sandys diffidently agrees with Blass’s opinions about the rhythm’, he lays greater stress upon the μίας and, as far as one can see, he adopts the principle stated by Headlam (Class. Rev. V 2700—72) that ‘in the first part at least, no conjectural emendation should be accepted which violates iatus’. In the first part also some examples are, however, found of undoubted hiatus; consequently the principle so severely formulated can scarcely be recognised, even if it should be taken into consideration concurrently. While Mr. Sandys decidedly maintains the authorship of Aristotle, he does not deny the possibility of foreign assistance. Chapter VIII treats of ‘The 1 In the Addenda p. LXXVII some more reservations are added.