Pigott’s Private Eye: Radicalism and Sexual Scandal in Eighteenth-Century England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charles Pigott hailed from a Shropshire gentry family that made the transition from Jacobitism to Jacobinism in the eighteenth-century. A bon vivant and man of the turf, Pigott scandalised the establishment by exposing the decadent habits of the landed aristocracy in the Jockey Club and the Female Jockey Club . These scurrilous exposés brought Pigott fame and persecution; they also established him as one of the first radical writers to make political capital out of the "boudoir politics" of the aristocracy. This paper examines the language of defamation in these pamphlets, their antecedents and their political purchase. Although the Jockey Club proved a resounding success, its sequel was less so; and this fact raises the question of why sexual scandal ultimately proved a more potent weapon of political criticism in late-eighteenth century France than in Britain. One reason is related to Britain's counter-revolution, to the reaction of the propertied classes towards French revolutionary violence, however critical they may have been to aristocratic libertinism. But another has to do with the nature of political society in France, the closer articulation between the “noble body” and the body politic. In Britain's more pluralist society, dominated by Parliament rather than the Court, attacks on the morals of the aristocracy were less politically damaging than they were in the France of the ancien regime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".