{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03461753210496929, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0072585147962032385, 'mean_word_length': 4.707006369426751, '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}}
Letter to the Editors

I wish to reply to Barbara Sparti’s review of my book, Emilio de’ Cavalieri “Gentiluomo Romano”: His Life and Letters, His Role as Superintendent of all the Arts at the Medici Court, and His Musical Compositions (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2002, 551 pp.), published in Dance Chronicle, Vol. 25, No. 2. A recognized technique of malicious reviewing is to reproach an author for not writing a book which he had no intention of writing, in this case even in a discipline other than his own. The subject of the monograph on Cavalieri is not dance, for the author, unlike Mrs. Sparti, is neither a historian of dance nor a teacher of “music and movement.” He engaged in choreographical problems only in a footnote on page 173, with some diffidence, reluctance, and the modest disclaimer: “though not being competent in these matters” (Ne sutor, supra crepidem!). From the review it would appear that some dance historians are interested as little in the many things which interest music historians as the latter are interested in the bodily movements of dancers. American schools of “performing arts” (this use of the present participle active is ungrammatical: arts do not perform) subscribe to dance journals, but academic libraries (historical, musicological), especially in Europe, do not, since their readers work in quite different areas. Dance Chronicle is to be found in none of the many excellent libraries in Rome. The book on Cavalieri should not have been reviewed at all in a dance journal because it is not addressed to such readership. As a result, the reviewer picked out only the few things she could connect with her own narrow interests, was disappointed in not finding more of this (because of the limitations of the sources), and ignored the bulk of the