{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.045992115637319315, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01576872536136662, 'mean_word_length': 4.311627906976744, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Annals V and VI

that prose rhythm is a device — like, say, anaphora — introduced sparingly for special effect, instead of a feature of every sentence. A Latin text is given, without apparatus. Deletions are left in the text, in square brackets, and M. shows no inclination to try to resolve cruces (cf. i3.6n. 'the road lies open to other strategies of interpretation, including emendation' — but we are not told what they are). The commentary is a most elegant piece of work. A good commentator should include plenty of notes that will be interesting and enlightening in themselves, and in this regard M. does not disappoint. For example: 2. in., the purpose of recitation being to solicit advance criticism of a notfinal draft; 5-5n., the Romans' sensitivity to metaphorical usages (M. is particularly good on metaphor, e.g. at n.3n.); 8.4x1., what novi homines put in their atria; 25.4n., M. Caelius' propensity to prosecution; 27.3n., courtesies of speech under the Empire show that men no longer deal with each other as social equals; p. 175, Tacitus may feel that Quintilian has laboured in vain; 31. in., the unrealistic nature of modern moots; 34.1 n., use of the Latin plural with words indicating relationship equivalent to our use of a singular with the indefinite article. A good commentator should also introduce an element of levity: thus 8.3n., physical presence desirable in university lecturers; 28.411., killer-nannies in the U.S.; 35.5n., what Messalla might have made of M. Beard's interpretation of declamation. The only feature of the commentary which is in my view a bad one is that prosopographical notes are abandoned in favour of a reference to OCD in almost every case (at 34.2n. the reader is even told not to consult OCD). Students simply will not follow up these references; and there is an art in writing a good, economical prosopographical note, tailored to the passage in question. The commentary is written with a student readership in mind (vii). Fascinating though the Dialogus is, I doubt if teachers will prescribe it for their students: Messalla's words on declining standards are perhaps too close to the bone, and the pessimism is depressing. But this edition will be of enormous value to the rest of us, and Tacitus would certainly approve.