MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254576460 · doi:10.3138/ecf.25.2.383

Rétif, Sade, and the Origins of Pornography: <i>Le Pornographe</i> as Anti-Text of <i>La Philosophie dans le boudoir</i>

2012· article· en· W4254576460 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy S. Wyngaard

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRousseau and Enlightenment Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPornographyReactionaryPerversionReading (process)LiteraturePhilosophyArtSociologyPsychoanalysisGender studiesLawPsychologyPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nicolas-Edme Rétif de la Bretonne’s 1769 Le Pornographe—the work from which the term pornography is derived—is not in itself pornographic, and scholars working on the history of pornography emphasize the work’s lack of substantive links to the modern pornographic genre. In this article, I will elucidate the role that Le Pornographe played in the development of pornography—and in particular in Sade’s literary production—by proposing a reading of Sade’s La Philosophie dans le boudoir (1795) as a parody and perversion of Rétif’s text. Sade’s dramatic dialogue, which presents a perverted family tale, subverts the sentimental model that Rétif’s text explicitly elaborates. The Revolutionary pamphlet that it frames, which presents plans to establish houses of prostitution for men and women, appropriates and distorts elements of the reform treatise in Le Pornographe, as Rétif himself perceived. By reading the two texts in concert, I show not only how Sade may have been less revolutionary than reactionary in his writing, but also how Rétif’s work can be inserted into the history of pornography as a pivotal text.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicRousseau and Enlightenment ThoughtFrench-language works237,207