"Patron-Client Relationships in the Radical Enlightenment" - eScholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patron-Client Relationships in the Radical Enlightenment Edward Andrew Political Science University of Toronto Abstract My paper examines Lord Shelburne’s relationships to his intellectual proteges, particularly Jeremy Bentham. I propose to analyze the reasons Shelburne drew thinkers (who have often been described as the radical Enlightenment) around himself, and what drew thinkers to him. Although patronage had been declared outdated in the middle of the eighteenth century by Samuel Johnson and Jean D’Alembert, and David Hume and Adam Smith misleadingly proclaimed that an independent existence was possible in the intellectual marketplace of a democratic print culture, most of the important writers (including Johnson, D’Alembert, Hume and Smith) of the eighteenth century received royal or aristocratic patronage. Indeed, patronage seems incompatible with the central motif of Enlightenment –independent thought or intellectual autonomy. However, if England could be said to have had an Enlightenment comparable to that in Scotland, France of America, it was largely composed of proteges of Lord Shelburne. The subject of my paper is Lord Shelburne’s relationship to those he patronized, namely, Bentham, Price. Priestley, Smith, Franklin, Blackstone, William Jones the Orientalist, and Maurice Morgan, the emancipator of slaves. Also, through his patronage of Andre Morellet, Shelburne was connected to Helvetius, D’Holbach, Turgot and other philosophes, as well as their patronnes, such as Mme du Deffand, Mme de Boufflers and Mme Geoffrin. Shelburne arranged for Condorcet to be translated into English and Bentham into French. Because of his French connections, as well as his conciliatory position with respect to the Americans, George III chose him as first minister in 1782 in the attempt to come to terms with both the Americans and the French. Although Shelburne’s poor reputation predated his term as first minister, began with the youthful and ambitious participation in the cabinet of “the great commoner”, William Pitt who became the Earl of Chatham’s in1766, his attempt to secure peace, despite the conflicting
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".