{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03699788583509514, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006342494714587738, 'mean_word_length': 5.109677419354838, '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}}
Shakespeare, the Earl, and the Jesuit (review)

“with the decline of marriage and the rise of the ‘feral male’, Western society is now in the process of rejoining the other primates, whilst the State shoulders the paternal responsibilities” (237). The book ends with a declaration that Elizabethans perceived that “reciprocity” between husband and wife lay “not in androgyny, psychological or political, but in complementary gender qualities” (240). Despite its many flaws, Mann’s book is worth having. Curmudgeons will enjoy his cranky remarks, and the rest of us will find useful information in his bibliography, notes, illustrations, and tables. His many references to the roles of female characters in the plays of Shakespeare’s predecessors and contemporaries should send us back to texts we too often ignore. And even if his arguments are less than persuasive, they remind us what is still at stake in our debates about Shakespeare’s women.