{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02295684113865932, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02066115702479339, 'mean_word_length': 4.889189189189189, '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': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Literary Theories of Daniel Heinsius: A Study of the Development and Background of his Views on Literary Theory and Criticism During the Period from 1602 to 1612.J. H. Meter

German reformers. These too were initially translated to document his support, however limited, for Luther's cause. By contrast his controversy with Luther over free will led to two translations (152526) that drew popular attention to his rift with the German reformers in a manner he had never desired. On the other hand, he can hardly have regretted the German versions of De esu carnium (1523) and the Expostulate (1526), which attempted to explain and justify his personal views on the Lenten fast and the Eucharist within a general framework of Catholic orthodoxy. In the case of his Epistola contra pseudevangelicos (1530) Erasmus personally revised the German translation by the Freiburg printer Johann Faber Emmeus to the point of creating noticeable differences from the Latin text. In 1531 a Strasbourg printer issued a preposterous German version of Erasmus' memorandum to the papal legate Campeggi (Allen letter 2366) reduced to seventeen numbered maxims; it generated no less than eight reprints. The irenic appeal De concordia was the last of Erasmus' major writings to be translated into German; two versions independent of each other were published, but no reprints are known. In view of the importance of Holeczek's undertaking one would wish the volumes still to come the benefit of additional copy-editing. In the present volume some passages might be smoother or clearer. The statement on p. 260 that Erasmus himself arranged for the distribution of German versions of De concordia and De puritate tabernaculi seems to be refuted by the following account. Some footnotes are too succinct to bear out the claims made in the corresponding text. Mistakes in Latin, French, and English quotations have gone unnoticed (pp. 94, 137, 157). None of these really matter; thanks to Holeczek's work it will no longer be possible to assume that during the crucial decade of the Lutheran Reformation Erasmus' influence was restricted to the small segment of the German public that read Latin.