{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013636363636363636, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.355769230769231, '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}}
Shakespeare and Renaissance Politics (review)

modern culture. Jackson rejects Foucault’s notion of Bethlehem as the precursor of the institutions of confinement and argues that the hospital was in fact an example of an earlier vision of madness in which charity and entertainment were still strongly intertwined. Less persuasive is Jackson’s attempt to say that Foucault was wrong—not in seeing a drastic epistemic change between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that separated madness from the world of reason and confined it in institutions such as the public asylums, but in considering the hospital of Bethlehem an example of the Great Confinement.