{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03733031674208145, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03619909502262444, 'mean_word_length': 4.784313725490196, '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}}
Britain, Empire, Europe: Re-reading Eric Hobsbawm

How should we think of the relationship between Britain, its empire and European 
history? When re-reading Hobsbawm’s trilogy on the nineteenth century with this 
question in mind one is initially struck by a paradox: while originally designed as a 
history of Europe and appreciated as such by a vast audience of readers, there is, 
conceptually speaking, surprisingly little «Europe» in it. The book titles themselves 
suggest that Hobsbawm was hesitant about a rigidly European framework. In its 
early editions The Age of Revolution carried the subtitle Europe, 1789–1848. Later editions 
dropped the «Europe»; they were simply entitled The Age of Revolution, 1789– 
1848. The other two volumes in the trilogy came without «Europe» in the title from 
the beginning: The Age of Capital, 1848–1875 and The Age of Empire, 1875–1914.