{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03745019920318725, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00796812749003984, 'mean_word_length': 4.735159817351598, '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}}
Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays. Edited by Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters. (New York: Anchor Books. 1972. Pp. ix, 505. $2.50.)

Nine essays on Hobbes, nine on Rousseau, and one linking essay, make up this volume in a "Modern Studies in Philosophy" series. Seven of the essays were written especially for it, the rest are from journals or books published mostly within the last few years. One expects some unevenness in any such collection, and one finds it here—not as between the published and the commissioned essays, nor as between those by established scholars and those by younger ones (which is not quite the same classification), but as between those on Hobbes and those on Rousseau. This unevenness is not a difference in quality, which is on the whole excellent in both, but in the writers' approach and, consequently, in the constituency they will interest. The papers on Hobbes, though not all by professional philosophers, are, with a few notable exceptions, more technically philosophic analyses, devoted to narrower points, and less rewarding for nonphilosophers, than are the papers on Rousseau (none of which are by philosophers). So the Rousseau papers will probably be more welcome to the political theorist.