Eussner have been found in the works of Cicero and Plautus. They further argue that, with only four of Quintus' letters extant, and those fragmentary, it is difficult to gauge his style. The laudations of M. Cicero for his younger brother's style may also have been a matter of brotherly hyperbole. The third argument cannot be refuted. Though some similarities in the Pro Murena could be due to similar subject matter, the correlations between the extant fragments of In Toga Candida and the Commentariolum are too strong to be ignored. These correlations can be (and are) argued in the opposite direction as well, however; the similarities between the Commentariolum and M. Cicero's later works may be the result of M. Cicero being influenced by the letter from his brother. Arguments of content Henderson presents many arguments to say that the content of the Commentariolum is anachronistic or faulty: The faults attributed to Catilina in Commentariolum 10 are actually those given to Clodius in De Haruspicum Responsis 42. The proscription of C. Antonius Hybrida is backdated, and actually occurred in 59. The trial of Q. Gallius, referenced in the Commentariolum, did not occur until 64, but after the Commentariolum The author of the Commentariolum was unaware of the dual meaning of sodalitas, equally 'group of friends' and an illegal electoral group. The humanitas of Cicero is backdated; it cannot be attributed to him until after his philosophical works (55-44 BC) There is no mention of the Catilinarian Conspiracy, which disappears from the historical record after Livy. Balsdon argues against many of Henderson's claims in favour of authenticity, stating that the similarities between the Commentariolum and De Haruspicum Responsis could be a matter of rhetorical similarities only. He suggests that Q. Gallius may have been tried twice, or may have entered into counsel with Cicero as early as 66 BC, though the trial did not take place for a couple years. He also suggests that the meaning of sodalitas was not changed to mean an illegal electoral group until 59. He is joined by Nisbet (who argues against authenticity) in suggesting that the proscription of Antonius may have had a far more quotidian meaning, such as the selling of property after bankruptcy, than Henderson seems to be reading into it. Richardson finally notes that the First Catilinarian Conspiracy is not mentioned until In Toga Candida, and as such takes its omission as