{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021718602455146365, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.309523809523809, '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}}
Consultation with a Magistrate in Justinian's Code

In his monograph on the praetorian prefect, L. L. Howe found it necessary to include an appendix concerning the Codex Justinianus as a source for this official. The problem was that while manuscripts or early editors had labelled various recipients of third-century imperial constitutions as prefects, all save two of those appellations were expunged by Krueger in his edition of the CJ. Howe considered it ‘impossible to believe’ that only two of the numerous pre-Diocletianic rescripts preserved by Justinian's compilers should have been directed to praetorian prefects; but he also realised that without further evidence or argumentation, Krueger's scepticism could not simply be ignored. The solution was to label some cases dubious; others, following Krueger, were rejected altogether. But beyond this, Howe was able to discover several instances of entirely unlabelled addressees who could be identified with otherwise known praetorian prefects, and he supposed that many similar cases might be found.