{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02514367816091954, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.509345794392523, '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}}
The Ashgate Research Companion to Henry Purcell by Rebecca Herissone, ed. (review)

despite her epistolary fraud, cast her as simultaneously loyal to husband and cause. The book ends well, with an analysis of the privatization of friendship in the works of Margaret Cavendish and Mary Astell. Throughout, Anderson builds an intricate and persuasive argument, one that makes fine distinctions between traditions and applications of friendship and the variant political communities that result, unearths new information about the circulation of Philips and Hutchinson’s works, and puts these two writers in dialogue with both classical philosophers and major Renaissance political theorists. It should interest anyone working on women writers, humanist friendship, and the fluid and internally riven nature of the political identities developed during the civil wars. Perhaps its broadest contribution, though, lies in its development of an alternate, shadow history of a lost—or, more properly, buried—tradition of political thinking. In a sense, it is a successful attempt to doubly “queer” narratives of women writers’ relations to political culture, in part because it shows these writers’ embrace of modes of association lying beyond married reproduction, and in part because in offers us an alternative political history—a history of what might have been, alongside a history of what was.