{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010494752623688156, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.911504424778761, '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}}
Some problems of titulature in Roman literary history

To consider the evidence for the titles of works of Latin literature is at once depressing and rewarding: depressing in that Latinists are revealed repeatedly as the slaves of erroneous convention, rewarding on account of the fresh light shed upon the world of books at Rome and upon literary terminology. It should be stressed that Roman books did in general have titles, and that those titles were often demonstrably the author’s own. Authors emerge in this study as sharply and frequently aware of the titulus as a physical object and of the importance to be attached to thoughtful and significant titulature.