Page:Frontinus - The stratagems, and, the aqueducts of Rome (Bennet et al 1925).djvu/30

work, neither of which usages characterizes the pseudo-Frontinus, and adds examples of other variations in Latinity and subject matter. Of Wachsmuth's thirty-two examples^[1] Wölfflin recognizes twenty as surely and directly taken from Valerius Maximus, and he adds to the list I. xi. 11-13, not mentioned by Wachsmuth. He considers the relation of the real and the pseudo-Frontinus to other authors from whom they drew their material, and finds a difference in their attitude toward Sallust, Caesar and Vegetius; and in general he discerns in the true Frontinus a truthfulness toward the facts given in his sources, whereas the pseudo-Frontinus, while exhibiting at times a slavish dependence on form, has no conscience about changing the facts. He believes that it was not by accident but by design that the fourth book was united to the other three, that the author of this book wished to be considered Frontinus and took certain definite measures to achieve that end, attempting to imitate the style of Frontinus in the use of certain phrases,^[2] keeping all his stories within the period which would be known to Frontinus, and in the preface to Book IV. virtually claiming the authorship of the first three books. Wölfflin rejects also, as belonging to the pseudo-Frontinus, the third paragraph of the preface to Book I., as well as the fourth (rejected by Wachsmuth and Gundermann), since he finds in it a rhetorical exaggeration,^[3] not characteristic of the true Frontinus, and a lack of consistency between the apology for incompleteness

1. Cf. p xxii.
2. e.g. quodam deinde tempore, tum cum maxime.
3. i.e. quis enim ad percensenda omnia monumenta, quae utraque lingua tradita sunt, sufficiat?