ματα, and where the writer has a distinct preference for dicta.[1]
On these and other grounds Wachsmuth brands as spurious a number of examples in their entirety and parts of various others. In his decisions against the following twenty, Wölfflin and Gundermann concur: I. iii. 7; I. vii 4; I. vii. 7; I. xi. 15; II. iii. 11; II. iv. 14; II. iv. 19; II. viii. 5; II. viii. 9; II. xi. 6; III. iv. 2; III. iv. 4; III. vii. 5; III. xii. 3; III. xiii. 3–5; III. xv. 2; IV. iii. 10; IV. vii. 11.
Wölfflin agrees with Wachsmuth in his general conclusions and continues this line of investigation. He begins by comparing the preface to the De Aquis with what he considers the genuine preface to the Strategemata, and notes similarities of style and structure. He then goes on to compare the first three books of the Strategemata with the fourth in points of Latinity, arrangement or subject matter. He contrasts the two authors' methods of employing proper names,[2] notes the frequent recurrence in Frontinus of certain phrases[3] not found in the pseudo-Frontinus, observes that Frontinus customarily places the author of his stratagems at the beginning of the story, and follows certain subordinate principles of subdivision[4] within the general divisions of his
- ↑ Cf. IV. v. 12, 13; VI. 3; VII. 4. Also IV. i. 17; IV. vii. 1, 2, 3, 16.
- ↑ e.g. Frontinus sometimes speaks of the elder Scipio merely as Scipio, sometimes as Africanus; he mentions the younger Scipio only once, as Scipio. In Book IV. the younger Scipio is once called Africanus, once Aemilianus; the elder is spoken of merely as Scipio.
- ↑ i.e. ob hoc, ob id, ideoque, as against ob eam causam in Book IV.
- ↑ i.e. that of nationality, followed by Val. Max.; or of locality, e.g. I. iv. 1–7, operations on land; 8–10, on rivers; 11–14, on sea.
