{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032388663967611336, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012955465587044534, 'mean_word_length': 4.913875598086125, '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}}
Romanticism, Natural Philosophy, and the Sciences: A Review and Bibliographic Essay

Some thirty years ago, Isaiah Berlin gave a series of radio talks entitled "Some Sources of Romanticism." At the end of one brilliant and densely packed hour, he stated that, of course, he was not going to be so foolish as to say what Romanticism was. There are by now well over a thousand books tackling the subject and almost as many definitions of Romanticism-or, as Lovejoy (1948) had it, different kinds of Romanticism. Today Berlin's caution seems doubly wise.' Until recently historians of science were, generally minor players in the study of Romanticism. However, Alexander Gode-von Aesch did publish a pioneering study in 1941 entitled Natural Science in German Romanticism. Gode-von Aesch began his study with a treatment of Goethe, approaching the author through his science. He went on to explore the possibility of using a similar approach to the entire age. He identified early German Romanticism as the critical period in "the age of Goethe" and neatly sidestepped the problem of definition by characterizing Romanticism as "the configurational fusion of a variety of contradictory definitions" (Gode-von Aesch [1941] 1966, p. ix, see