{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03051237766263673, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.931740614334471, '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}}
Some Aspects of A. J. P. Taylor's Work as Diplomatic Historian

The practice of diplomatic history is at present unpopular, particularly among the younger generation of historians in America. Social history, intellectual history, Cliometrics even, women's (or should one write wo-people) studies, black studies, oral history, Heinzian neo-Marxism (in one of its fifty-seven well-known varieties) all compete to draw off the ambitious, the parochial, the monoglottal, and the trendy. In Britain the late G. P. Gooch, himself one of the most balanced and humane practitioners in the field, long ago dismissed diplomatic history as the study of what one clerk wrote to another. Among the younger British historlans, T. W. Mason has accused diplomatic historians of distorting the study of history by confining themselves to a very limited range of evidence, the documents of the competing diplomatic services and foreign ministries. Even Taylor himself, in his latest work, has retreated from or abandoned the field (it depends on the viewpoint) for domestic British history and biography. There is no doubt that many of the criticisms advanced against the practice of diplomatic history are well taken, especially against so-called American diplomatic history, based, as it so often is, on the study of American records alone. It is easy to produce a monograph or a thesis in the field of diplomatic history, difficult to produce a book. Readings in diplomatic history tend to be dull and poorly written, deriving their appeal solely from the availability of new evidence and the filling of gaps in a general picture, gaps often of importance seemingly only to their discoverers. The unpopularity of diplomatic history has, however, deeper