{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018362662586074982, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.443349753694581, '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}}
Metamorphosis and the Muse. A Review Article

The production and construction of knowledge and a growing acceptance of the historical fluidity of knowledge have in recent years become a stock in trade of the intellectual historian. The relations between political structures and intellectual developments, whether in the humanities or in the scientific discourse necessarily implied by such interpretations, have acquired a central role in the tasks that historians of ideas have taken upon themselves. These five titles, with their varying methodologies and concretely specific areas of discussion, reflect this recent trend, and, with the exception of Stephen Bann's elegant little volume, all concern themselves in addition with the social location of their protagonists. This new dimension in intellectual history, which stresses the social construction and indeed significance of knowledge, has found particular favour amongst historians of science. In their study of Victorian chemistry, which they deem the major academic science of Victorian Britain, R. F. Bud and G. K. Roberts devote considerable attention to a partially quantitative analysis of those active within that element of the scientific community. The authors' approach places great emphasis on the interplay between the individuals in-