{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027385892116182572, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007468879668049793, 'mean_word_length': 5.090909090909091, '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}}
Cicero on Oratory

As editor of the Bude Rhetorica Ad Herennium, A. is ideally equipped to indicate the differences between the two treatises, and this faculty is a constant and instructive feature of the notes. In the introduction he deals frankly with the uncertainties surrounding the composition of De Inventione, but proposes 84/83 B.C. for its publication, making it closely contemporary with the Rhetorica ad Herennium. Adduction of Brutus 308 (pp. 7-8) as evidence for this seems questionable, since Cicero describes there only his rhetorical studies {in omnium doctrinarum meditatione versabar); and he then says eram cum Stoico Diodoto, suggesting a pupil/teacher relationship with a man who became his lifelong friend, rather than engagement in creative composition. Examination of influences is thorough and productive: but A. also warns of the limits which the paucity of Hellenistic rhetorical texts imposes, and also shows that, while Aristotelian influence in De Inv. is manifest, it may be secondhand, and there are significant differences, especially regarding dispositio. He considers the influence of Hermagoras of Temnos to be slight, and notably less than that of the Rhodian School.