{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017241379310344827, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002652519893899204, 'mean_word_length': 5.036, '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 COURSE OF EMPIRE

dimension of the disputes over religion central to French history with a more recent historiography that emphasizes the evolution of belief and practice as worthy of scrutiny in their own right. Like many other scholars these days, he uses the category of identity, and the process of identity-formation, to organize his thoughts and evidence, but does so without recourse to the jargon that sometimes gets in the way in such work. Some questions can be raised in response to Byrnes’s categories and periodization. For example, I am not convinced that defense and détente deserve to be distinguished so clearly by period, as argued by Byrnes. There were voices advocating détente well before the end of the century and the union sacrée. And I believe there was more religious antagonism involved in the massive demonstrations against the Savary educational reforms in 1984, which Byrnes sees as inspired by political and economic motives. The trajectory he presents is, nonetheless, plausible. Much more important than this chronological skeleton is the flesh and bone with which he clothes it, allowing us to see some of the intellectual commitment and emotional passion that fueled religious/political debate. Byrnes makes no effort to draw comparisons with contemporary disputes in which religious communities oppose the secular impulses supported, at least in part, by modern states. But anyone interested in such issues would profit by reading this erudite and well-crafted volume.