The birth of naval history: audience and objectivity in British eighteenth-century historical writing

Abstract

During the early decades of the eighteenth century the first general naval histories were published in Britain. Individuals from a range of backgrounds claimed ownership of this new and burgeoning subject, all professing to have produced the most reliable and accurate histories of the navy. Their competing publications provoked considerable debate, with authors drawn into fighting a war of words in the national press. These disputes raised important questions about the study of the past. Who should write naval history? How should it be written? Who was it written for? This article places naval history in the broader context of British politics, society and culture, investigating three works of naval history published between 1720 and 1735. It analyses their authorship and intended audience, suggesting that the production of these works was a symptom of a society quickly becoming enamoured with its naval past, and keen to record and disseminate this history. In addition, this article will explore the debates over objectivity, expertise and authority that were central to discussions over who should write naval history. In doing so, it contributes to a broader historiography that considers the development of the historical profession in the early eighteenth century.