here expressed[1] and Frontinus's avowed intention of citing only as occasion shall demand.[2] But his strongest reason for suspecting the genuineness of these two paragraphs lies in the fact that their insertion here interferes with an arrangement exhibited elsewhere by Frontinus of annexing the summary of succeeding chapters directly to some such statement as quibus deinceps generibus suas species attribui.[3]
Gundermann reviews the arguments of Wachsmuth and Wölfflin, accepts many of their conclusions and adds to the evidence. He disagrees with Wölfflin as to the ungenuineness of the third paragraph of the preface, and defends the authenticity of several examples. Of the duplicates, the critics agree that IV. v. 8, 9, 10, 11, and IV. vii. 6 are interpolations from Book I., and that II. iv. 15, 16 are interpolations from Book IV. Wölfflin and Gundermann regard I. i. 11 as transposed from chapter v.; Wachsmuth thinks it originated in chapter i.
Besides these duplicates, there are several cases in which the same story has apparently been drawn from different sources and is, therefore, told differently in two places; i.e. I. iv. 9 and I. iv. 9a; I. v. 10 and III. ix. 9; I. v. 24 and II. xii. 4; II. viii. 11 and IV. i. 29; III. xvi. 1 and IV. vii. 36; III. ix. 6 and III. xi. 3; IV. ii. 5 and IV. ii. 7.
In addition to the stories suspected as a whole, various other portions of the text are regarded as interpolated, i.e. parts of I. ii. 6; I. xi. 13; II. iii. 7;
