{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020448548812664908, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002638522427440633, 'mean_word_length': 5.092369477911647, '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's Restorations of the Father.David Sundelson

such as Henry Angsar Kelley's (1970) showed the chronicles were more diverse in their interpretation of the historical events than earlier critics had realized. Against these prior readings of the history plays, one chapter of Reed's book argues for a notion of divine vengeance that never changed from the Anglo-Saxon period through the Renaissance. Later chapters devoted to reading the histories further reveal the cultural model authorizing his critical procedures. He tells us, for instance, that "the collective mind" of the Elizabethans was "less cluttered with sophistications than is that of the twentieth century world" and therefore more "responsive to the fundamentals of justice." Such statements reveal an ethnocentricity which sees earlier cultures as less complex than ours—both less heterogeneous and less subject to change from one century to the next. All the cultural detail that made one play different from the next and gave each tetralogy a distinct historical character, that must have spoken to a multifarious audience in Shakespeare's day and has given rise to a diversity of critical readings in our own, all that disharmonious, noisy clatter with which one epoch resounds on the ear of another, all of it is silenced in the name of unity. In the manner of the return of the repressed, one might argue, this very material has renewed the critical controversies which help to make the postmodern world as madly complicated as it is.