Studies in the Genesis of the Naval Profession

Author(s): Norbert Elias

Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Dec., 1950), pp. 291-309
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political
Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/586890
Accessed: 01/10/2009 21:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

Studies

in

the

Genesis

of

the

Naval

Professionl

NORBERT ELIAS
_

I. GENTLEMEN
ANDTARPAULINS
AROFESSIONS, strippedof their gear and apparel,are specializedsocial
Jfunctions whichpeopleperformin responseto specializedneedsof others;
i i
they are, at least in their fully developedform, institutionalizedsets
of humanrelationships. The study of the genesisof a profession,therefore,
is not sply a study of a numberof individualswho first performedcertan
functionsfor othersandenteredinto certainrelationshipsurithothers,but that
of these functionsand relationshipsthemselves.
They all, professions)occupationsor whatevertheir name may be, are
m a peculiarway independent,not of people,but of those particularpeople
by whomthey arerepresentedat a given time. They continueto exist when
their presentrepresentativesdie. Like languages,they presupposethe existence of a wholegroup. And if they change,if new occupationsemergewthin
a commanity,again, these changesare not simply due to acts or thoughts
of this or that particularperson,not even to thoseof a scientistor an inventor.
It is the chanpg situationof a wholecommunitywhichcreatesthe conditions
for the rise of a new occupationand determinesits courseof development.
Scientificdaiscovenes
andinventions,newspecializedmeansforthe satisfaction of human needs, are undoubtedlyfactorsin the developmentof a new
occupation; so are new humanneeds themselves. But neitherof these two
factors is by itself its fount-head and its source. They dependon each
otherfor thelrdevelopment. Humanneedsbecomedifferentiated
and specific
^

1 This is the first of three studies in the ongins and the early development of the career
of naval oflicers in England. It shows the initial situation in which members of the nascent
profession were recruited from two very different social groups. The second study deals with
tensions and conflicts between these two groups; the third with their gradual integration and
the emergenceof a more unifiedhierarchyof naval ofEcescombig to some extent the functions
and methods of training of both groups. In addition, a bnef comparisonwith the early develop
ment of the naval professionin France shows some of the interrelationsbetween the development
and characteristics of naval professions and those of the countries to which they belong.
These studies are based on research undertaken some years ago for the Social Research
Division of the London School of Economics. I am greatly indebted to Mr. H. L. Beales for his
friendly advice and encouragement.
29I

THE GENESIS OF THE NAVAL PROFESSION

292
only in conjunctionwith specializedhumantechniques; these on their part
emergeand crystallizeinto occupationsonly in view of potentialor actual
humanneeds.2 The ciseof R new occupation,therefore,is not due to that of
new needs or of new techniquesalone, buLto the interplaybetween both.
It is, in essence,a processof trialand error3 in whichpeopleattemptto match
occupationaltechniques or institutions and human needs. Every single
step in this directionis executedby individuals. Yet, the processas such,
the genesisand developmentof a professionJor of any other occupation,is
more than the sum total of individualacts. It has a patternof its own.
For specific maladjustments,discrepanciesof one kind or the other
between professionalinstitutions and the needs they serve, and tensions
between grollps of people engenderedby these discrepancies,impose their
patternupon individuals. They, not individualsas such, are the mainlevers
of a profession'sdevelopment. T}le adjustmentof institutionsand needs,
may arise at
m steadily changingsocieties,is nevercomplete. Discrepancies
one time more from changesin technique,at anothermore from changesin
social conditionsand requirements. Whatevertheir immediatecause, they
createspecificdifficulties; they producefrictionsand conflicts; they confront
everymemberof a professionwith problemsnot of his ownmaking. However,
as soon as he entersa profession,these institutionalproblemsbecomehis own
problems,these difficultieshis own diEculties,theseconflictshis owrxconflicts.
hands. Sometimeschanpg social
Nor are the solutionsentirelyin his OWI2
conditionsfavouradjustment; at others,they delay it or blockit altogether.
It may happen,as it happenedin fact early in the historyof the naval profession,that, for severalgenerations,peoplebecomeinvolvedtime after time
in professionalconHictsof the same type, wrestleagain and again with the
sarneprofessionalproblems,and,knowingwhatseemsanide21solution,areunableto bringit about. In all thesecases,theproblemsareset forthe individual
by the webof socialfunctionsinto whichhe enters,with its inherentdisparities
betweenmeansand ends. Impelledby them,he continueswith his short-term
aims what he did not start, the long-termdevelopmentof his profession.
In historicalstudies,the developmentof professionsand otherinstitutions
I shall send you books so that your children can read them."
The headman said, " Thank you for your gift ", and raised his hands in salute as one must
do whenever anyone oSers you something in Limbo. But then he dropped his hands and said
with a touch of impatience, " Is not that like the man who gave the village a tiger and then
gave the lrillage a gun to shoot it with ? "
A roar of approval . . . came from his listeners. " B'e hase no books and so ue do not
need to read."
From Aubrey Menen, The Prevaletce of Witches,p. 94.
p. 297, where this
2 A. M. Carr-Saundersand P. A. Wilson, The Professiorls,Oxford, I933,
sterdependence has been noted though sith a stronger emphasis on one factor, on the progress
of research.
in J. A. Hobson and BI.Ginsberg,L. T. HobAsouse:
3 M. Ginsberg,The Workof L. T. HobAzouse,
His Life and Work,London, I93I, p. I58: " The most common method of operation in large
groups is strictly comparable to what in individual psychology is called trial and error. The
accommodationof partial purposes to one another, their interrelationand correlation,is brought
about by a series of efforts at adjustment within which the external observer may perchance
detect a principle which the agents themselves certainly could not folmulate. There is in short
a point by point adjustment but no comprehensive or settled purpose."

NORBERT

ELIAS

293

oftenappearsas a smoothandsteadyprogresstowards"perfection" the " perfection"of ourtime. Attentionis frequentlyfocusedmoreon the institutional
favade,as it appearsin this periodand then in the next and finally in the
present,and less on the actual humanrelationshipsbehindthe fa,cade. Yet
it is only by visualizingthese institutionsas part of a wide networkof human
relationships,by resurrectingfor our own understanding
the recurrentdifficulties and conflictswith whichpeoplein the orbitof these institutionsstruggled
withinthis network,that one can comprehendwhy and how the institutional
frameworkitself emergedand changedfrom periodto period. The unsolved
problemsraisedin the mindsof contemporaries
by the shortcomingsof their
professionalinstitutionsare, in other words,as essentiala part of the history
of these institationsas the solutionitself. In retrospect,the latter comesto
life only when seen together with the former. If one comes face to face,
behindthe moreimpersonalfaSade,with peoplestruggling,often in vain, to
adjust their inheritedinstitutionalframeworkwith all its incongruitiesto
whatthey feel to be theirownneeds,then the atmosphereso oftensurrounding
old institations in history books, the atmosphereof museum pieces, loses
itself. In that respect,the peopleof the past are on a par with us; or rather
we wth them.
II

The naval professiongrew into shape at a time when the navy was a
fleet of sailirlgships. In many respects,therefore,the training,duties and
standardsof naval officersweredifferentfromthose of our time. It has been
said that the commandof a modernshipwithits elaboratetechnicalequipment
requiires
a scientificallytrainedmind. That of a sailingshiprequiredthe niind
of a craftsman. Only peopleapprenticedto the sea early in life could hope
to masterit. " To catch'em young" wasa well knomrn
sloganof the old navy.
It sras quite normalfor a young boy to start on his future careeras naval
officerat the age of g or IO directlyon boardship. Manyexperiencedpeople
thought it almost too late if he came on board at the age of I4 not only
becausehe had to find his " sea-legs", and to overcomesea-sicknessas early
as possible,but becausethe art of splicingand knottingthe generalrudiments
of rigging,the properway of going aloft graspingthe shroudand not the
rattling-and a hostof othermorecomplicatedoperationscouldonlybe learned
by long and hard practice. To acquireunderstandingof sailingships people
had to work, at least for a time, with their hands. Book learningwas of
little avail.
At the same time, all naval officers,at least fromthe eighteenthcentury
on, regardedthemselves,and wishedto be regardedby others,as gentlemen.
To masterthe manner'sart was only one of their functions. Then, as now,
naval officerswere militaryleadersin commandof men. One of their most
importantfunctionswas to fightan enemy,to lead their crewinto battle and,
if necessary,to boarda hostile ship in a hand-to-handfight until it struck.
Moreover,in times of peaceas in times of war, naval officerscamefrequently

294

THE

GENESIS

OF THE NAVAL

PROFESSION

into contactwth representativesof other countries. They were expectedto

knowone or two foreignlanguages,to act as the representativesof their own
countrywlth firmness,dignity and a certainamountof diplomatictact, and
to behave accordingto the rulesof what was then regardedas goodbreeding
and civility.
In short,an oicer of the old navy had to unite in his personsomeof the
qualitiesof an experiencedcraftsmanwith those of a rnilitarygentleman.
At first glance,this combinationof duties may seem neithersurpnsing
nor problematic. In the courseof the twentiethcentury" gentleman" has
becomea vague generalterm refemng to conductrather than social rank.
It may be applied to manualworkers,to master craftsmenand noblemen
alike. Duiing the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies,however,it had a
very muchstrictersocialmeaning. It was, duiingthe formativepenodof the
naval profession,the distinguishingmark of men from the upper and some
portionsof the middleclasses,setting them off againstthe rest of the people.
Its meaningchangedfrom time to time, usually,with a certaintirne-lag,in
accordancewith the changingcompositionof the House of Commons. But
whateverelse it meant at a given time, those who workedwith their hands,
whethermastercraftsmenor labourers,werealwaysexcludedfromthe ranks
of gentlemen. Even the mere suspicionwas degradingfor a gentlemanthat
he had done manualwork at any time duringhis life.
Pepys's often quotedremarkto the effect that amongnaval officersthe
seamen were not gentlemenand the gentlemennot seamen,therefore,was
morethan the elegantbonmotof a Stuartwit. It was the pointedexpression
and
of one of the gravestpracticalproblemsconfrontingnaval administrators
navalofficersthroughoutthe earlyhistoryof the navalprofession. Gentlemen
could not learnthe art and craft of a seamanwithoutfeelingthat they had
loweredthemselvesin the eyes of the world. Experiencedseamen,on the
otherhand,who had learnedtheir tradein the only way in whichit couldbe
learned,startingearly in life as seamen'sapprentices,were not regardedas
gentlemen; they lacked, or were thought to lack, some of the qualitiesof
prowess,good breeding,military leadershipand diplomatictact considered
as indispensableattrlbutes of people who were in commandof military
operations and who came frequently into contact with foreign officers
mostly of noble birth. For the properfunctioningof a militaryfleet of sail
it was necessarythat its offlcersshouldpossesssome of the qualitiesof both
militarygentlemenand seamen. Yet, how could one expect to reconcileon
boardship social and professionalfunctionswhich on land appearedwholly
incompatible?
The fusionof the duties of seamenand gentlemenas we find it later in
the historyof the naval professionwas, therefore,not the simpleand obvious
arrangementwhichit appearsto be if one appliesto it the socialconceptsof
our time. It was the outcomeof a long drawnout struggleand a processof
trial and esTorlastingfor morethan a century. Fromthe time of Elizabeth
to that of QueenAnneandeven longerthoseresponsibleforthe navy wrestled

NORBERT

ELIAS

295
with this problemwzthoutmuchimmediatesuccess. Veryspecialconditions,
and conditionsprevailingin England,and partly in Holland,aloneof all the
WesternEuropeancountries,made it possiblegraduallyto overcomethese
difficultiesto someextent. Andboth the difficultiesandthe resultingconflicts
themselvesas well as the mannerin which they were slowly solved, were
responsiblefor some of the most outstandingcharacteristicsof the English
naval profession. But in orderto understandthese developments,it is necessary to cast back one's mind to the social attitudes and standardsof that
period and to visualize the problemsinherentin the growth of the naval
professionas they presentedthemselvesto people of that age, not as they
appearto us accordingto the social distinctionsand ideals of our own.
III

In the MiddleAges Englandhad not a navy in the propersense of the

word. The same military personnelwas used for warfareon land and at
sea, the same ships for fightingand for tradingor fishing. Sea-battles,even
in the Channel,werecomparativelyrare. If they occurredthey were fought
by land armiesassembledon ships in almostthe same manneras battles on
land. The seamenprovidedtransport; the knightsand their followersdid
the fighting. The associationbetweenthe two groupswas purelytemporary.
It would have hardlyoccurredto a noble knight to take over professionally
some of the duties and responsibilitiesof a mastermariner.
The situation changedgraduallyat the time of the great discoveries.
Dunng that period,all Europeancountriesborderingon the Channeland the
Atlantic with the exceptionof Germanyweakenedby inner dissensionswere drawn,one afterthe other,into the strugglefor dominationof the newly
discoveredsea-routesand for possessionsoversea. To hold her own, England
like her nvals had to developher maritimeresources. The growingstrength
of some of her neighboursalongthe coastlineoppositeto hers threatenednot
only her sea-communications,
but also her security at home. Englandfor
her part threatenedwith her growingstrengthher neighbourson the other
side of the Channeland the SpanishSeas. The emergenceof a new power
system all aroundthe WesternEuropeanseas and the spiralof powerrivalry
forcedall thesecountriesinto a contest; it compelledthemto fight,to expand,
to becomewhat we call imperialistpowers,and to go on fightingtill one or
the other was defeatedand fell back. Therewas no escapefromits impact.
Like hernvals and allies,Englandhad only the choiceto expandor to become
dependenton others.
Underthe pressureof this steadilyexpandingsea nvaAry,many requirements of these countriesand the corresponding
techniquestransformedthemselves morerapidlythan before. It becamenecessaryto reorganizefleet and
militaryforces; accordingly,similarproblemsof adjustmentarosein all these
countries. But as their strategicpositionand their politicaland socialconstitution were different,the degree,the speedand the methodof adjustment
varied a good deal.

296

THE

GENESIS

OF

THE

NAVAL

PROFESSION

In England,the militaryforces,formerlyusedindiscnniinatelyforfighting
on land and at sea, dividedinto land forcesand sea forces. The old sailing
fleet, used as the occasiondemandedfor tradingor for fighting,developed
graduallyinto two morespecializedbranches,onemainlycommercial,the other
mainlymilitaryin character. Specializedbranchesof fleet and army drawn
togetherandfinallymergedinto one formedin courseof time a newspecialized
establishment,a militaryfleet which becameknownas the Navy.
At the sametime,thesetwo movesgraduallygavense to a newprofession,
that of naval officers. The growingpowerrivalrybroughtabout what one
mighttraditionallycall a " divisionof labour". In actualfact, differentiation
went hand in hand with integration,specializationwith fusion,transforming
not onlythe labour,but the wholesocialfunctionsof people. It wasnot simply
that mannersspecializedfor service in a military establishment,and that
militarygentlemenattachedthemselvesmorepermanentlyto the fleet. The
new departurein mantimewadarecreatedthe need for peoplewho in a new
specializedformwere seamenand militarymen at the same time.
However,while it was difficultenoughto masterthe technicalproblerns
rased by the drive for largerand largerships specializedfor warfare,while
people learnedslowly and painfullyto build two-deckersand three-deckers
with moreand moreguns, the solutionof the humanprobIemsbroughtabout
by these changesprovedif allythingeven moredifficalt. Two sets of people,
marinersand militarygentlemenJ
whobelongedto very differentspheresof life
and whoin the past had had few professionalcontactswith eachotherwereas
a resultof thesedevelopmentsforcedto collaboratemorecloselyandforlonger
periodsthanthey haddonebefore. A definitepatternof teamworkembracing
both sets did not exist and could not exist at this stage unless an outside
authontywerestrongenoughto imposeit as in FranceandSpain. In England,
in that situation,status-battlesand a strugglefor positionwereunavoidable.
Throwntogetherby circumstancesbeyondtheir power,both groupstned to
preservein their new relationshiptheir traditionalmodeof life andthe professionalstandardsto whichthey wereaccustomed. Both failedand resentedit.
In Franceand SpaJn,the grouanginterdependence
of these two groups
producedvery similarproblems. But the solutionwas, at one time or the
other, imposedfrom above. Openconfiictsbetweenseamenand gentlemen
were hardly ever allowedto develop. They were suppressedby stact and
immovableregulations. The two groups,therefore,never becamefully integrated. Nordid militaryand nauticalfunctionsamalgamate. Noblemenand
gentlemenremainedin essencemilitarygentlemenand nothingelse. It was
quite unthinkablethat they shouldpass for a time througha trainingakin
to that of a craftsman; or that craftsmenshouldbecomein any respecttheir
equals. They continued,in fact, up to the French Revolutionand even
longer,to regardand to conductthemselvesmoreor less as specializeddetachmentsof the land army. Professionalseamencontinuedto providetransport
for soldiers. The social distancebetweenthe two groupswas so great that
neitherfeud nor fusion could ensue.

NORBERT

ELIAS

297

In England, on the other hand, with its differentsocial and political

organization,men from both groupsbecamefor a time naval officers. Collaborationbetween the two groups was closer than in France and Spain;
undisgliisedtensionsand open feudsweremorefrequent; they persistedfrom
Elizabeth'stime to that of Williamof Orange. As a result, there emerged
graduallya new divisionand hierarchyof dutiescomprisingboth groups,and
these duties were both military and nauticalin character.
IV

The ixiitialrelationbetweenthe two groupswas unequivocal; both knew

their place. During part of the sixteenth century, the professionalseamen
were still undisputedmastersin their own field. The King, like other shipowners,usuallyleft each of his ships in the care of a master-mariner
and his
associates. The leading corporationof ship masters,the " Brotherhoodof
the most gloriousand undindedTnnity " at Deptford-sur-Strand,
was, during
part of this century,in chargeof the CrownDepots at Deptfordand of the
" Navy Royall" generally. It was this Corporation,
the TrinityHouse,which
selected the master for each of the King's ships. The master,on his part,
brought his own " gang" together includingother craftsmenofficerslike
boatswain, master carpenter,master gunner and cook. They formed the
permanentstaff of the ship.
The captain, on the other hand, was " lawfullychosenby a General".l
He in turn was " to makechoiceof his lieutenant00.2 And at the end of the
journeybothleft the ship. They,the militaryofficers,wereappointedtemporarily as the occasionarose.
However,whenin the courseof the sixteenthcenturymilitaryoperations
at sea becamemorefrequent,and particularlyafter the exploitsof pnvateers
like HawkinsandDrakehadopenedbeforethe youthof Englandnewprospects
of fame and wealth, young gentlemenwere attractedin greaternumbersto
the sea.3 Fromthat time on, for morethan a century,two groupsof officers
existedin the navy, with few mterruptions,
sideby side. Theywereknownby
such names aLs" land capts"
and " sea captains" or " gentlemencommanders" and " seamencommanders";4 the latter, after the Restoration,
becamealso known as tarpaulincommandersor tarpaulins.5 But whatever
their names,in their own time the differencesbetweenthe two groupswere
obvious. Later generationsoften forgot or misunderstoodwhat may have
Sir William Monson, NavaZTracts, ed. by M. Oppenheim, I9I3, vol. IV, p. I4.
Ibid., p. I5s { Look at Drake. His reputation is so great that his countrymen Socli to him to share
his booty " Cal. S. P. Ven., Aug. 20, I588.
' The term " commancler", throughoutthat period, referredto the actual function of people,
not to any specific rank. It could be applied to all people in command of a ship.
5 " Tarpaulin", a piece of canvas washed over with tar, was at that time what one might
call the over-all of the ordinary seaman. It had many uses. It could be employed as cover
during the night; it could provide shelter from sun and wind or serve as a raincoat. So, from
the name of what they used as a garment, " Tarpaulin" became the sobriquetof the men. Being
rather a long and 1lnhanflyword for a nickname, in course of times it became " tar " pure and
2

simple.

THE

298

GENESIS

OF

THE

NAVAL

PROFESSION-

state of affairs. Their

appealed to them as a strangeand sncomprehensible
contemporariestook it for granted; they could alwaystell to whichof these
two groupsa particularnaval officerbelonged. For althoughmen fromboth
groups performedin the navy, at least nominally,the same functions,had
often the same rank and competed,to some extent, for the same positions,
trainingbut alsoto their
they differedwithregardnot only to theirprofessional
social descent.
The seamencommanders,althoughin details their careersvarieda good
deal, had this in common,that they were craftsmenor " artists". They all
had started as shipboysearly ln life; they had served their apprenticeship
on board ship usually for seven years. Whetherthey had done so in a
or in a man-of-warmadelittle difference;nordid it very much
merchant-man
matterwhetherlaterin life they had changedfromoneto the other. In course
of time, with the dueconsentof the shipmasters'corporation,they had become
masters,slowly and by degreesif they had nothingbut their meritsto speak
for them, moreeasily and quicklyif they had moneyor friendsto help them.
Then,they had procured,by chanceor by choice,appointmentas commander
of one of the King's ships, usually, at the beginning,of one of the smaller
vesselssuch as a frigateor a fifth rate, or perhapsof a merchantship enlisted
in the King'sserviceduringa war. And if they wereexceptionallybraveor
lucky, there was, in principle,nothing to prevent them from rising to the
position of an admiral.
The " gentlemencommanders",on the other hand, came to thew commard muchln the sameway as othermilitaryofiicers. Therewas no question
the trade of an
for them of going throughan apprenticeshipor of leg
seaman. Whilea tarpaulincommandermighthave passed" through
Ordinary
all the officesand degreesin a ship" 1 beforehe had becomea commanderin
the King's service, for gentlemen,newcomersas they were to the sea, no
comparablesenes of steps, no reglllarmethodof traiIiingfor the sea existedin
Elizabeth'stime; and all attemptsmade duringthe seventeenthcenturyto
seriesof steps for them failed
establisha similartrainingarlda corresponding
moreor less, mainlybecauseone couldhardlyhopeto attractyounggentlemen
to the navy by forcingupon them a trainingincompatiblewith their status
and honour,a trailiing,that is, togetherurithyoung craftsmenapprenticesor
at least similarto theirs.
In a smallnumberof cases,gentlemenlearnedthe seamen'sart by sharing
for a tirnethe hard and roughlife of professionalseamen. Like Monsonor
Mainwaringthey became privateersor pirates.2 As a rule, all that was
1 Monson, Naval Tracts, vol. IV, p. 24.
hIonson stressed the differencebetween the authonty of captains in the Royal Navy who
" had power from a General" and that of " private captains " who had merely been granted
letters of reprisal. The latter was in exactly the same position as the master and other mariners
whether he was a professional seaman or a gentleman. For they all went out " Ox1their OWD
adventure " and received no pay. " Therefore they will ", wrote Monson who was obviously
speaking from experience, " tie the captain to the same conditions, in his dietJ. . . as themselves
are tied. His authority is little better than the captain in a pirate " (Naval Tracts,vol. IVJP. I7).
The diflerencebetween privateers and pirates was at that time not as great as it may appear to
9

NORBERT

ELIAS

299

reqed of a gentlemanin ordertcxqualifyfor a commissionin the narrywas

a few sea journeysas volunteeror in a similarcapacity which involved no
regulartraining. It was only in the early eighteenthcentury that a post
and station in the careerof youngmarlners,the post of a midshipman,developed finally into a regulartratningstation reservedfor young gentlemen.
By then, however,the dividingline betweenthose who were, and those who
were not, regardedas gentlemenhad slightly shifted its place in the social
spectrum.
Duringthe seventeenthcenturr,therefore,many gentlemenwent to the
sea with little sea-expenence,procuringappointmentsby favouror purchase.
They were-,as Monsonwrote,l" Captainswho only take uponthem that name
holdmg it a maxime that they need not experience". In the same vein,
Pepys half a centurylater, still strugglingnot too successfullywlth the same
problem,remarkedupon the Elizabethannalryratherwistfully: 2
Observe. . . that in '88, though there was a noblemanAdrniral,they were
fain to make two plain tarpaulins,Drake and Hawkyns, their Vice- and RearAdm*als notwithstandingtherewerea great many men of qualityin the fleet....
But of what servicetheir inexperiencecould be (morethan to shew their prowess)
is easy to be judged.

The markeddifferencebetween the professionaltrainlngand career of

these two groupsof officerswas, in other words,closely connectedwith an
equally markeddifferencein their social antecedents. The seamencaptalns
came as a rule fromwhat one might call the urbanmiddleand lowerclasses.
They belongedto the mass of the commonpeoplecompnsing,at that time,
wealthy merchantsas well as poor craftsmenand artisans. The gentlemen
on the other hand were courtiersor at least men with Court
capts
connections. Like other people moving in court society they came for the
greater part from nobility and gentry. Even if they were of middle-class
descent, as sometimeshappened,life at Courtconferredon them a special
social status. For membersof Courtsociety formeda group apart. They
distinpshed themselvesfrom membersof other social groupsnot only by
their real or pretendedinfluenceand powerdenved fromclose contactswith
those who ruled the land, but also by their maers and ambitions,their
virtues and nces and their whole mode of life.
Thusthe distinctionmadem the seventeenthcenturybetweengentlemen
captains and seamencaptainsin the nalrywas the equilralentof that made
in society at large betweenmen of quality and men of mean birth. It was
closely connectedwith that made, particularlyin London,betweencourtiers
and citizens. Onland, these classesof peoplewereseparatedby a wide social
gulf. At the outbreakof the civil war, most courtiersand citizensbelonged
us. The formerplundered,burned and destroyed foreign ships with the permissionof Queen or
King, the latter without it. Capt. John Smith in his GenerallHistorie of Virginia,I629, chap. 28,
mentioned a number of Elizabethan sea-ofiicers who in King James's time for lack of employment, because they " were poore and had nothing but from hand to mouth", became pirates
and were " mercifullypardoned" when the King needed again encpenencedofficersfor his navby.
X Monson, Naval Tracts, vol. IV, p. I4.
s G. PepysJatav Minxtes, ed. by J. R Tanner, N.R.S., Ig26, p. II9.

the City of Tendon, their own cause.

300

THE GENESIS OF THE NAVAL PROFESSION

to oppositecamps; and the seamenof the navy joinedhandswith the citizens

in protectingParliament.l Ashore,they lived in difielentworlds. Courtiers
couldhardlyadmitcommonpeopleto theiracquaintanceon termsof equality,
let aloneof tntimacy,vethoutloweringthemselves. Yet in the navy menfrom
both groups,gentlemenand seamen,wereforcedinto closercontacts. There,
differentin socisl rank as they were, they often held positionsof equal prb
fessionalrank; it could even happenthat the roles were reversedand that
gentlemenbecamethe subordmatesof their social infenors.
Obnously,this situationwas liable to give rtse to tensionsand conflicts.
In orderto see it in perspective,one has to rememberhow differentwerethe
social diorisionsof that period from those of the nineteenthand twentieth
centunes. Wealth,in the seventeenthcentury,certainlycountedfor much;
but birth axldupbringingstill took precedenceover wealthas factorsof social
rank, and caste over class. In the courseof the nineteenthand twentieth
centunes socii life revolved more and more aroundtensions and conflicts
betweenmiddleandlowerclasses. Corresponding
socialtensionswerecertainly
not absentduringthe seventeenthcentury,but they werestill overshadowed
by thosebetweenthe mlddleand lowerclasseson the one handand the upper
classes on the other.
From the seventeenthcentury on, the upper layers of the commercial
classesdrewnearerto the upperclasses; craftsmenand artisans,on the other
I942,

1 Jo2ernal
of Sir SimondsD'Ewes,ed. by W. H. Coates, New Haven, Yale University Prew,
p. 348, IO J.
I64t (I642):
" A propution came from the saylen and minen
to bee

with us too morrowto defend the Parlisment by water with muskets and other ammusiitionsi
searerallressels which was accepted by us."
A panwphlPt," The omwrl's Protestation . . . concerning their Ebbing and Flowing to
and bom the ParliamPnt House at Westminster, the tIth of January I642", also indicateS
how strong was the {eeling rmang the seanaenof ffie navy that the cause of Parliament, and of
" . . . a rumourbeing spread amongst us that that great Court was in fear to be dissolved,
and howmg too well the happiness of this Kingdom consists in their services, rememberingthe
wordsof Arch-bishopCranmer,a bIartyrof ever ble
memory,which were: WO be to England
when there is no Pat1itmfbnts we seeing and heaeiIlg the whole City to be in compleat arms,
presently turrkedfreshwater soldiers, and with as sudden expedition as we could, attended by
water their progressthither, and joyned our thunder of powder with the City Muskets, at their
entrance into the House, (the Temple of our safety) to the terrourwe hope of all Papists and the
Ands R-nemi"....
We who are alwayes abroad can best tell no governmentupon the Earth is
comparableto it; . . . Witnesse tihe heavie and lamentable distractions in France, Spain and
Germalliefor want of them or the like Government....
Now the kingdom is involved iD a
civill war and a mighty Army of Papists (and Atheists) contrary to the known Lawes of the
Land are in Arms against the Parliament,if they could, to destroy the same and so trample the
Common Laws and the CONIMONSof Frigizrfl
under foot, and to make us all slaves in our
Religion, immuniti and priviledges. It behoves us that are geamen to bestir us and looke
about us the better and the rather because we, and who but we, are to nanage the Navy of ships
which are and ever have beene accomptedthe brven Walles of the Kingdom against Forrasnne
invasion

. . ."

Sir John Laughton, in a paper " Historiansand Naval History " (publ. in Navat and AIilitary
Essays,Cambridge,I9I4, pp. 4 .), complaining,on good grounds,that the influenceon England's
national life attnbuted to the Navy in historical studies was usually confined to battles won
at sea and main+ainirgthat, in fact, this influencewas far greateraxldwider, gave among others
the following example (p. 7):
" . . . it is, I think, Amiliarly kno that in the Civil War of the searenteentihcentury,
the Navy adhered to the Parliament,but as no battles were fought, the advantage to the ParLiament was believed to be trifling, if not negligible. It was left for Dr. Gardiner,after more than
two hundredyears, to show that it was really the detel.s.ining factor of the struggle; but even
Gardinerdid not consider it necemsaryto examine why the Nalry took the Parliamentarzrside."

NORBERT

ELIAS

3ot

hand,peopleengagedm manualwork,sanklowerin the socialscale; and from

the latter part of the eighteenthcentuIgon the chief dividingline of society,
the mainaxis of tensions,shiftedmoredefinitelyto the commercialand industnal sectionof the population,dividingit into two camps,the workingclasses
and the middleclasses. In the seventeenthcentury,the line of demarcation
betweenthe ncher and the poorersectionsof the commercialclasseswas still
less sharply drawn. The differenceswithin these classes, great enough ixI
themselves,weresmallcomparedto those separatingall these groupstogether
from the upperdasses and particularlyfrom Courtsociety.
v

The relationshipbetweengentlemenand seamenin the navy was greatly

influencedby that betweenthe broaderstrataof Englishsocietyto whichthey
belonged. Gentlemenwho cameas officerson boardship naturallycontinued
as best they couldto live in the style to whichthey wereaccustomed. They
assumedas a matterof coursetowardsseamenthose attitudesof supenority
which had becomesecondnatureursththem in their relationmathpeopleof
inferiorsocialrank.l They were,in short,separatedby a wide gap fromthe
rest of the ship's company.
The socialdistancebetweenseamencaptainsand their subordinateswas,
by companson,small. A seaman captain was not above dining unth his
subalternofiicers. He might, as Sir WilliamBooth did, sleep for years on
deck " with nothingolrerhim but a tarpaollirl
that his seamenbe the better
contented".2 If he took his young son on a journey,we might find the
capt's son learning,plapg andbeingwhippedtogetherwiththe childrenof
boatswainand carpenter.3 And unlessthe captainhad moremoney,his son's
chancesin life wereprobablynot verydifferentfromthoseof his playmates.
Nor was thereany great differencebetweenthe socialstatus of a seaman
commanderin the navyandof the commanderof a merchant-man. Whenthe
middleand lowerclassesbecamemoredifferentiatedand the gap betweenthe
naval and the merchantsenriceundened,the officersof the formercame as a
1 Richard Gibson, a clerL:in the Navy office at the time of Pepys and an ardent partisan
of the sOmen, os!..p*red m a memorandum(published m Life and Worksof Sis Henry Mainwaring,N.R.S., l922, vol. II, p. Issxvi f.) the attitudes and qualifi^ationcof genflemenofficer_and
se3men oficers. Though obviously biased, the companson is, m some respects, quite instructiere.
" . . . A gentleman i8 put into command of (suppose a) 4th rate shipp, complement 200
men; he shall bring neare 20 lanflmen into the shipp, as hic footmen, taylor, barber, Eddlers,
decayed kindred, voluntier gentleman or acquaintance, as companions. These shall harrethe
scodation
of a master's mate, mirlshipman,quartermaster,master trumpeter, cowswaiDe
etc. and too often their pay....
Now all that gentle-mencaptaines bring aboard with them,
are of bishop Willinmwsopinion, that Providence mnde man to live ashore, and it is necessity that
drives him to sea. When on the contrary, a seomAn, as soon as he has commzntl of a 4th rate
hipp of 200, has none bPlonFngto him but such as devout themselves to the sea as a trade. . ..
" A mxn
captaiD takes up less of the shipp for his accomodation.
" A gentlen*n captain ims the steridge for his grandeur,quarterdeck for his pidgeonsetc.
" A se8JTInn
u bmili:tramongst his men, talking to severall on the watch, is upon deck all
night m foul weather, gives the most active a dram of his bottle.
" A gentlemnn has a sentinrll at his great cabbin doore (to ke
sxlencein the belfry) and
Oft dmes beates his master for not comeing to him foslhwith when hee rings his bell iD
the night...."
s Pepys, Tangicr Papers, ed. by Edw. Chappell, N.R.S., x933, p. t35.
$ Ramblin' Jack, thc Jowrnal of Captvin John Cremer,I700X774, T4pflof, I936, pp. 45 S.

302

THE

GENESIS

OF THE NAVAL

PROFESSION

rule froma highersocialstratumthan those of the latter. At the end of the

seventeenthcentury,we can still find in the same family one son a captain
in the navy, anothermasterof a merchantship.l We can find officersof the
navy takingoverpostsas mastersin the merchantservice,mastersof merchantmengettingcommissionsin the navy. Eventhe Mateof a merchantman
could
say that he " consideredhimself full equal of any man holdingthe King's
commission".2
The antecedentsand familyconnectionsof seamencommandersshowthe
same pattern. Someof them were sons or brothersof well-to-domerchants.
Capt. ThomasBest, for instance,who was " bred to the sea " in the usual
manner,procuredthe commandof a shipwith his father'shelp,foughtin I6I2
as an East-Indiatraderthe once famousaction off Swally (at the mouth of
the Surat river)againsta superiorPortugluese
force, and as a fairly wealthy
man left the East India tradefor the King'sservice. Wars,or the threat of
wars, always inducedthe governmentto employ a considerablenumberof
merchant-ships.The ownersand commandersof ships " so taken up by the
government"were often employedto commandthem for the Crown.3 This
was one of the many ways in whichmerchants,ship-ownersor ship masters
might become naval captains. Sir ThomasAllin4, a native of Lowestoft,
appearsto have been originallya merchantand ship-owner. At the outbreak
of the civil warhe adheredlike his native town to the King. In I665, he was
knightedand appointedadm*al of the blue under Lord Sandwich. In the
navy of the Commonwealth,
formermerchants,ship-ownersand shipsmasters
played an even more prominentpart. Richard Deane, James Peacock,
NehemiahBourne,RichardBadiley, they all, apparently,had gained some
sea expenenceas merchantsor shipownersbeforethey becamecaptains,lriceadmiralsor adrniralsin the Commonwealth
navy. Giles Penn, a captainin
the navy, was at anothertime of his life consulfor the Englishtrade in the
Mediterranean.His eldest son becamean opulentmerchantin Spain; his
youngestson William,bornat Bristolin I62I, " servedwith his fatherfroma
boy in variousmercantilevoyages",5becamean admiralin the time of the
Commonwealth,
servedin the samecapacityunderCharlesII and wasknighted
for his services.
ZIany other tarpaulincommanderscame from a stock of craftsmen.
Therewere sons of mastermarinersor mastergunnerswho in courseof time
1 Ramblin' Jack, the Journal of Captain John Cremer,I700-I774,
London, I936, pp. 33 ff.
John Cremer'sfather made his living as master of merchant-men. His father's brother was
a captain in the navy, his cousin a naval l,ieutenant. His mother was the daughter of a
master rope-maker " living high " and keeping his coach and livery. His mother's sister
was mamed to " Captain Masne, uncle to Admirall Maine". He was brought up by an aunt
who was first married to a Captain (without specification), then to a storekeeper in the
Customs-housewhose nephewwas a naval captain. His grandmother,widow of the master ropemaker marriedfor a second fne an " old gentleman who had two sons, lieutenants in the navy,
and three daughters, one of whom was married to a captain of an East-India-man, one to a
master of a merchant-man and the third to a wealthy farmer".
2 Journal of Edw. Barlow, col. by B. Lubbock, I934, II, 328.
8 G. Penn, Memorialsof theProfessionalLife and Timesof Sir Williae7D
Penn, s833, vol. I, p. 3.
' Arfcle ln Dict. of Na. Biography.
5 G. Pe,
Memosials, p. 5.

NORBERT

ELIAS

3o3
had followed in ther fathers' footsteps. Penn, for instance, while still a
master,had trained,and taught to te, one GeorgeLeake,who himselfhad
been " taken to sea by his own father while a very little boy and bred by
times to do anything of a boy's work as Penn was too''.l GeorgeLeake
becamelater well knownas a mastergunner. He was the fatherof Admiral
Sir John Leake.
The textureof that largesocialgroupfromwhichthe seamencommanders
camewas in manyways differentfromthat of any comparablegroupof a fully
developed industnal society. If one applies to it present-daylabels, for
nstance that of " middle classes", one cannot lose sight of the fact that
craftsmenand artisans,people who worked,or who had worked,with their
own hands,could be foundnot only in its lower,but also in its higherlayers,
that its ranksshadedover imperceptiblyinto what we might call the " lower
classes", and that by far the greaterpart of the membersof this groupwere
not regardedand did not regardthemselvesas gentlemen.2
In the majorityof cases the seamencommanderscame probablyneither
from the richest nor from the poorestsection of the commonpeople. The
small groupof merchantprinces,peoplelike Sir ThomasSmytheor William
Cockayneof the East-IndiaCompany,certainlyknew moreprofitableways of
employingtheir time than that of commandinga man-of-war. For a poor
lad without fnends or family influence,on the other hand, it was not very
easy to rise above the subordinatepositions on board ship. In order to
obtain the more profitableplace of a master,it was usually necessaryto
have either a benevolentpatronor some money of one's own to pay for the
appointment. The detailed descnptionby EdwardBarlow3 of his struggle
for advancementfromthe station of mate to that of masterduling the later
half of the seventeenthcentury,showshow difficultit was for a man starting
without patron or money to obtain the commandof a merchantship or to
rise in the King's service.
However,this moneybarrierwascertainlynot insuperable. In fact, ql}ite
a numberof people who came from the poorersections of the commercial
classes,fromthe " lowerclasses" as we mightcall them,roseto the command
of a man-of-war.
Amongthem the best knownis probablySir CloudesleyShovel4 who was
1 Pepys, Tangier Papers, p. 288.
The top layer of the commercialclasses was at that period represented by the governors
and directors of the great trading companies, especially of the East-India Company. In Queen
Elisabeth's charter of I600 neither the governor nor any of the 24 directors of this Company
was designated as " gentleman"; in that of James I the governor was a knight, but the 24
directors ^^rere
still plain citizens. In Charles II's charter of I66I the governor and II of the
24 directors were called " knights ", one director was a peer, another was styled as " esquire "
and the rest as " gentlemen " (India Ofiice Library, Quarto of Chartersquoted in W. W. Hunter,
History of India, I900, vol. II, p. I88). This is one example of the transformationin the course
of ^rhichthe cleavage between the upper and upper middle classes became less, that between
the latter and the lower classes more pronounced.
3 Journal of Edw. Barlor, transcr. and ed. by B. Lubbock, London, I934.
4 C. I650-I707.
The famous story how he swam as a boy with irtlportantdispatches in hi8
mouth through the line of the enemy fire is in all probability apocryphal. Neither the tracts
written in praise of Shovel shortly after his death, nor Campbell,in his Life of theBritish Admirals,
from the middle of the eighteenth century, mentioned it. Charnock,in his BiographiaNavalis,
2

THE

304

OF

GENESIS

PROFESSION

NAVAL

THE

apparentlya shoemaker'sapprenticebeforehe went to the sea as a cabin-boy

under Sir ChristopherMyngs1 and later under Sir John Narborough,2tuTo
other tarpaulincommanderswho in courseof time becameadmirals. He is
sometimesrememberedas the exceptionalcase of a man becomingadmiral
who had " crept in at the howse-hole",who in other wordshad started as
a simple seamanbeforethe mast. However,althoughexceptionalqualities
his career
enabledhim to becomean admiral,up to his appointmentas captaLn
was the normal career of a tarpaulincommander. Among his colleagues,
3 madehisstart as apprenticeon a Leithtradingsmack,and
Sir David WIitchell
was later a mate in the Baltic trade; during the second Dutch war,
he waa pressed into the navy, distinguishedhimself, was made second
lieutenantin I677, lieutenantin I680, and captainin I684. Accordingto the
Biograp}iaNavalis4 he was " probablynot employeddunng King James,
as well fromhis knownaversiollto the Catholicfaith as fromhavingbeen one
of those who first repairedto the Prince of Orange". High in William's
favour,he becamein I693 rear-admiralof the blue and groomof the bedchamber. Vice-AdmiralJohn Benbowstarted accordirlgto some writersas
a waterman'sboy,6 accordingto others as a butcher'sapprentice.6 He ran
awayto the sea andwent throughthe usualtrainingof the professionalseaman.
from

end

the

of

I674

squadron

in

the

ships

dey's

many
further

was

and

to

first

and

Killigrew
In

I707,

near

on

Sir

his

wife

was

pher

a good

little
and

In

our
as

as

one

in favour
he

that

own

was

time
of

the
after

I640-88.

was

and

of

joint

in

the

battle

command

of

he

Toulon

was

fifth

rate.

Like

II

and

made

little

Battle

of

La

Hogue,

fleet

with

of
the

burning

the

in-Chief

Commander
on

James

himself

by

corsairs
of

"

Narborough's

John

Tripoli

captain

At

Sir

protector,

of

the

such

by

respect,
he
the

the

of

Bantry

British

fleets.

and

shipecked

was

he

Admiral
droed

His

STarborough.

John

daughter

always

families
of

a son

Katherine

with

be

of

character

and

or

"
a

of

in

was

is

North

the

certainly

of

BIvnnes,

the

he

which

statement

>'icholas

Parr,

the

Norfolk.

the
of

daughter

this

a man

property

of

of

and

his

are

accompanied
occupation

by

family
a

otas

" help

the

they

property,
family

a seventeenth-century

It

biogrraphies.

naval

unless

of the

commanders

seamen

in

" ourner

family

of
to

accorded

to

enough

family

status

social

size

regard

frequently

" good

can

be

regarded
In
but
of

doubt

about

a man

of

little
as

He

commanders.

I665;

not

" this

that

being

father

(AIyngs's)
daughter

hoyman's

well-to-do
if

mother,

" His

Diary:
a

repreChristo-

his

" good

sixteenth

may

said,

be

comparatisely
by
of

more

its

owner
For

contemporaries.
only

family"

if

it

sas

contemporaries.

its

exception

of

were
kinsman

His

found

like

Restoration.
in

the

be

status

social

tarpaulin

his

mother

his

parents
a near

particularly

the
the

there

was

in

wrrote

and

His

can

may

opinion

Pepys

family.

phrases
of

knighted
with

present

policy

Sir

and

accepted

" extraordinary

his

property."

elucidating
all

above

regarded
his

stock

statement

1666

been

type,

centuries,

towards

whatever

the

Dict. of Nat. Biographyadds

hase

of

of this

that

detailed

in

put
he

chief

shoemaker

Norfolk

owner

seventeenth

therefore,

made

Orange.

attempt

old

false.

to

old

Controversies
and

his

The

entirely

. seems

the

boast."

if not
.

Parr,

of

day

this
to

of

was

unsuccessful

I3 January

Under

exaggerated,
sentative

widow

the

at

and

father

the

the

was

distinguished
of

in

lieutenant

was

it
as

regarded

against

with
He

I705,

In

Delaval.

from

he

\Villiam
line,

one

fight

disagreed

I688.

enemy

was

the

Later

authentic.

Romney.

frequently

His

what

islands.
was

1 I62566.
always

as

of

year

in
same

by

after

the

Ralph

return

Lord

maxTied

he
before

shortly

through

Scilly

the
His

career

his

knighted
break

the

In

commanders

in

progtess

Bay

harbour.

the

tarpaulin

other

himself

distinguished

and
in

it

explanation

a part

Biographia tSavalis he

the

to

treated

century,
as

probably

According

career.

the

eighteenth

the

repeated

*equently

in
Sir

was

of

status

Sir
In

descent.
one

actually

his
I664 he hoisted
at his funeral,
I666,
William

the

common
flag

of

as

as

the

few

the

tarpaulins

noted,

he

no

person

of

Coventry.

4 Chaock, Biographia Navalis, I794, vol. II, p.

' Biographia Britannica, I747, vol. I, p. I79.

I05,
6

I650

was

who

of a Channel

vice-adnniral

Pepys

naxT

In

BIyngs.

Christopher

(?)-I7I0.

Dict. of Nat. Biography.

known

remained
squadron;

quality

s-as

NORBERT

ELIAS

3o5

In I678, we find him as master'smate,in I679 as masterm the King'sseruce,

then for many years as master, and perhapsas owner, in commandof a
merchantship, then againin the navy, (I689) as third lieutenantunderCapt.
I)avid Mitchellat the battle of Beachy Head and againin I692 at the battle
of La Hogue. In I693 he was in commandof a flotillaof bomb vessels and
fireships,servedas rear-admiralin I695 and, in I70I, as Commander-in-chief
in the West Indies. He successfullyfought the Frenchander Du Casseoff
Carthagenain I702 althoughdesertedby the otherships of his squadronand
diedshortlyafterof his wounds. He has beendescribedas " a plaindownright
seaman" who " spoke and acted upon all occasionswithout any respectof
personsand svith the outmost freedom''.l His son was like himself " bred
to the sea". He went in I70I to the East Indies as a fourthmate.2
VI

Both the family backgroundand the careerof a gentlemancommander

were quite different. Some of them, like Lord Effinghamand the other
Howards,were noblemen,courtiersand militaryofficersof the highestrank.
They took over the commandof a naval armyin the same way as any o.ther
military commandrelying for all manne problemsentirely on professional
mariners.
Otherswere noblemenand gentlemenimpovenshedor pooraccordingto
ther standardswho were frst attractedto the sea by the hope of restoring
their fortune,peoplelike AdmiralThomasCavendish3 who was in the words
of Campbell
a gentlemandescendedfrom a noble family of Devonshireand possessedof a very
plentiful estate which he being a man of wit and great good humourhurt pretty
deeply by his expencesat court. Upon this he took it into his head to repairhis
shatteredfortunesat the expence of the Spaniardswith which view he built two
ships from the stocks . . . and sailed from Plymouth on the twenty first of July
I586.4

Otherscame from the landed gentry, youngersons usually, or sons of

younger sons, with a courtieras patron,people like Vice-AdmiralAylmer,
secondson of Sir ChristopherAylmerof Balrathin the countyof Meath,who
was page to the Duke of Buckinghamwhen a boy, got on the Duke'srecommendationa place as volunteeron one of the King'sships,becamelieutenant
in I678, commander
of a sloopin I679, captainof a secondratein I690, andnceadmiraland commissioner
of the nalryin I6g4.5 EdwardRussell,the father
of AdmiralRussell,later Earl of Orford,6was a youngerbrotherof the first
1 Campbell,Lives of the Admirals, I750, vol. IV, p. 233: " . . . in King CharlesII's reign
he uas owner and commanderof a ship called the Benbow Frigate....
He was always considered by the merchants as a bold, brave and active commander . . . no man was better . . .
respected by the merchants upon the Exchange than captain Benbow....
The diligence and
activity of Captain Benbow could not fail of recommendinghim to the favour of . . . King
William to whose personalkindness founded on a just sense of Benbow's ment he owed his being
so early promoted to a flag."
2 Ibid.. p. 2343 I560*2.
4 Life of the British Admirals vol. I.
5 J. Charnock, Biographia Cavalis, vol. II. p. 35.
' I653-I;27

306

THE GENESIS

OF THE NAVAL

PROFESSION

Duke of Bedford. AdmiralGeorgeChurchill,lson of Sir WinstonCharchill,2

was a youngerbrotherto John, firstDukeof Marlborough.Sir Ralf Delaval,
Sir GeorgeRooke and many other gentlemencommandersbelongedto the
same category.
Othersagainwerethe sons and relativesof peoplewho held courtoffices.
The father of Sir GeorgeAyscue was gentlemanof the privy chamberto
CharlesI. EdwardLegge,fatherof GeorgeLegge,laterLordDartmouth,was
groomof CharlesI's bed-chamber;his grandmotherwas a sister of the Srst
Lord Buckingham.
A small numberof the gentlemencommanderswere sons of what we
wouldnow call " professionalmen". But in most cases their fatherswere
professionalmen in the King'sserviceor at any rate in close contactwith the
court. EdwardHerbert,the father of AdniiralHerbert,was a gentleman
to CharlesI, attachedhimself
of the long robe. He acted as attorney-general
in exile to the Duke of York and was later appointedLord Keeperof the
great seal. AdmiralKilligrewwas the son of a clergyman. But his farnily
had court connectionsfor morethan two generations. His great-grandfather
was a groomof the pnvy chamberof QueenElizabeth,his grandfathercourtier
and M.P. His father'ssister, Lady Shannon,was one of the mistressesof
CharlesII. His father,Dr. HenryKilligrew,was at the outbreakof the cilril
warchaplainto the King'sarmy,laterchaplainto the Dukeof York. Killigrew
himselfwas by upbringinga courtierand a gentleman. He receivedhis first
comssion after a short serviceas volunteer.
In orderto see the differencemoreclearlyoneneedonlycompareAdmiral
family backgroundwith that of a tarpauSincommander,Sir John
Willigrew's
BelTy,vice-admiralunderLord Dartmouthin I683, whose father was also
a clergyrnan. However,Berry'sfatherwas a countryvicar,apparentlyturned
out of his living, plundered,and impovenshedduringthe civil war, who died
childrenand little to live on. John Berry, his
leaving a nadowwith e
I7 years old when his father died, went to Plymouth,bound
second
himselfapprenticeto a merchant,part-ownerof severalships,went to sea and
learnedthe tradeof a professionalseamanin the ordinaryMay. He obtained
on a ketchof the Royal
with the help of somefnendsthe placeof a boatsssrain
Navy, andworkedhis wayup fromthis place,stepby step,to that of lieutenant,
and commissionerof the navy. Pepys knewhim well;
captain,vice-adrniral
he left us in his notes from the Tangierexpeditionin I683 recordsof the
conversationshe had dunng that journeywith Sir John Berry and another
Booth,whowascaptainof the
SirNVilliam
distinpshed tarpaulincommander,
expedition'sflagship. Like everybodyelse, Pepys regardedBerry not as a
and Slr
gentleman,but as a professionalseaman. Thus, AdmiralKilligresY
John Berry, althoughthey were sons of clergymen,came in fact from very
son,3

1 I654-I7I0.
| I62088,

named after his materIlalgrandfatber,Sir HexlryWiIlstonof Standiston. Winston

of the Court of Claimsin Ireland and
Churchill,knighted in I663, was afterwardsCossioner
one of the Clerk Comptrollersof the Green-Cloth.
' Campbell, Life of the Admirals, I750, vol. III, p. 279 f.

NORBERT

ELIAS

3o7
differentsocial classes,l and belongedto differentgroupsof officersin the
navy.
Very occasionally,it happenedthat men of commonbirth pretendedto
the role and status of gentlemencommanders;but, in these cases too, court
patronageand familiaritywith the outlook and mannersof courtiersseems
to have been an essentialcondition. Pepys made a note that accordingto
Sir WilliamBooth " there are four or five captainswhichhe knowsto have
been footmen,companionsof his own footman,who now reckonthemselves
among the fine fellows and gentlemencaptainsof the fleet". And Pepys
added as an afterthought: " . . . it makesme reflectupon it that by the
meaningof gentlemencaptainsis understoodeverybodythat is not a bred
and understandingseaman. ., .X}2
We know of a few gentlemenwho learnedthe trade of a seamanmore
orlessin the mannerof theirsocialinferiors. SirWilliamMonson,3
forinstance,
well linownas one of the Elizabethanprivateercommandersand as authorof
the Naval Tracts,ran away to sea, probablyin I585, after some years at
Balliol, and learnedthe trade of a seamanfor a time in the same hard and
rough manneras an ordinarysailor. In I587, he took the commandof a
privateership, enteredthe naval sece and served first as volunteerand
shortly after, underthe patronageof the Earl of Cumberland,
apparentlyas
vice-admiral. He took his M.A.at Oxfordin I594, served,in I596, as captain,
and lateras Essex'sflagcaptain,in the navy, was knightedafterhis expedition
to Cadiz and acquiredfame and wealth when he captureda rich prize in
CezirnbraBay. He had familyconnectionswith the courtof both Elizabeth
and James I. His elderbrotherwas one of the Queen'schancellorsand one
of the King's master falconers. Monsoncombinedin fact the trainingand
experienceof a professionalseamanwith those of a gentlemanand courtier.
But hybridsof this type werenot very numerouseven in Elizabeth'stime
whensocialmobilitywas comparativelygreat. They becamerarerstill ander
the Stuarts. People spoke more and moreopenly of seamenand gentlemen
as of two difierentclasses of naval officers. And after the civil war class
consciousnesswas so acute that, in naval circles,and to some extent in the
country at large, everybodytook the distinctionbetween gentlemencommandersand seamencommandersfor granted.
1 A century later, *om the second part of the eighteenth century on, the status of a gentleman
was accorded to clergymen, and to their sons, more or less as a matter of course. In the seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries professionaltraining and professionalfunctions alone
did not confer on people the status of a gentleman. The higher clergy, especially the bishops,
ranked as gentlemen because these positions were usually reserved for people born into the
gentlemen classes. The poorer clergy ranked with craftsmen, tradesmen and workmen because
they mostly came rom, and lived like, the common people. And other occupations which we
call professions, for instance that of lawyers, were equally divided; they did not form part of
what later generations came to call the " professionalmiddle classes ". As for the naval profession, anomalousin its conditions was not so much the fact that it recruiteditself from different
sections of society, but rather the fact that men from the lower sections could occupy the same
positions and rise to the same ranks as those from the higher.
2 Pepys, Tangter Papers, N.R.S., I935,
p. I2I.
3 Sir William Monson, Naval Tracts, ed. by M. Oppenheim, N.R.S., I902,
vol. I, General
Introduction.

308

THE GENESIS

OF THE NAVAL

PROFESSION

One cannot say with any degreeof precisionhow many naval officers
belongedat a given time to each of these two categories.l The proportion
changedwith the changingrequirementsof the navy and the generalpolicy
of the government. But one can say that from the end of the sixteenth to
the beginningof the eighteenthcenturyboth groupswererepresentedin the
navyin numberssufficientto preventoneof themfromdominatingthe development of the naval professionand fromfashioningit alonein accordancewith
its ovvnstandards,traditionsand interests. It was in fact the precarious
equilibnumand the recurrenttug-of-warbetweenthese two groups,reflecting
as it did the balanceof forcesin the countryat large, whichdominatedthe
history of the naval professionduringthese early stages of its development.
VII

In retrospect,one may find it difficult,at first, to visualizea profession

in which people of differentsocial rank and differentprofessionaltraining
workedtogetheras colleaguesand, at the samete, struggledwith eachother
as nvals.
However,the navalprofessionof the sixteenthand seventeenthcentunes
was certainlynot the only professionin which two differentsocial and professionalgroups,for a time, workedand struggledwith each other. The personnel of the rudimentaryairforce,for instance, was recruitedearly in the
twentiethcentury,partly from men with the outlookof aviatorsand partly
from militaryofiicers. In that case too it was necessaryto co-ordinatethe
workof twosets of peopleof differentmentalityand,to someextent,of different
socialantecedents. But the disputebetweenthem *sas short,and the rivalry
restrained.
Nor are situationsof this type confinedto the historyof militaryprt
for instance,two groupswith differentsocial antecedents
fessions. ToWday,
and differentprofessionalqualificationsare sharing with each other the
managementof state industries. People in charge of these industriesare
recruitedpartlyfromthe middleclassesand partlyfrommen of workingclass
descent.
It wouldnot be difficultto find otherexamplesof this kind in past and
present. In fact, a similar phase, an initial antagonismand struggle for
positionbetweenrival groups,may be foundin the early historynot only of
professions,but of almost every institution. If one attemptedto workout
a generaltheory of the genesis of institutionsone would probablyhave to
say that the initial conflictis one of the basicfeaturesof a nascentinstitution.
One can go still further; one can say that similar status-battlesand
strugglesfor position,longeror shorter,as the case may be, can be found
1 R. Gibson has left a list of all tarpaulin commanderswho from the time of Elizabeth up
to his own time became flag officers. Apparently,his list does not include tarpaulin commanders
sho became flag officersunder William III. Gibson mentions 6 Admirals,g Vice-admtralsand
4 Rear-admirals (Life and Forks of Sir Henry Mainwaring, N.R.S., I922, vol. II, p. xc). It
seems reasonableto assume that among captains, masters and commandersetc. the proportion
of professional seamen was usually greater than among admirals.

N ORBERT

ELIAS

3o9

wheneverindividuals,initiallyindependent,are about to mergeinto a group,

or smaller groups into a larger. In that sense, the tensions and conflicts
betweensoldiersand mariners,betweengentlemenand seamenin the history
of the naval professionmay serve as a simplemodelfor other morecomplex
conflictsand strugglesin the historyof mankind. They weregrouptensions
and institutioxwal
conflicts,that is, inherentin the group-situation
of thesemen
and causedby the institationalpatternof their relationshipsand functions,
as distinctfrompnmarilypersonaltensionsandconflictsbetweenpeoplecaused
for instanceby paranoicor sadistic tendenciesor, more generally,by inner
conflicts of individuals. For that reason,they reproducedthemselvesover
many generationsalthoughthe individualschanged.
The detailedaccountof this struggleand of the gradualemergenceof a
moreunifiedprofessionmust be left to separatestudies. However,the study
of the social characteristicsof these two groupsalreadygives some clues to
the problemswhich had to be solved beforethis strugglecould come to an
end, and to the difficultieswhich stood in the way of a solution.
The problemmadeitself felt, as far as we know,firstin the time of Elizabeth. As early as I578, duringhis voyage of circumnavigation,
DrakesI?oke
of the quarrelsbetweengentlemenand mannersand stressed how necessary
it was for both groupsto worktogether. Morethan a centurylater, in I683,
Pepys madea note on a discussionhe had with Sir WilliamBooth and others
on the same subject and urote 1 that they
do agreewith me that gentlemenought to be broughtinto the Navy as being men
that are moresensibleof honourthan a man of meanerbirth (thoughhere may be
room to examinewhetheras great actions in honourhave not been done by plain
seamen,and as mean by gentlemen,as any others and this is worth enquiring)but
then they ought to be broughtup by time at sea....
And then besidesthe good
they woulddo for the King and Navy, by their fnends at Court,they would themselves espousethe cause of the seamenand know what they deserveand love them
as part of himself; and the seamen would be broughtto love them rather more
than one of themselvesbecauseof his quality,he beingothermrise
their fellowseaman
and labourer.

And in I694 the Marquisof Halifax again referred,in his RoughDraughtof

a newModelat Sea, to " the presentControversie
betweenthe Gentlemenand
the Tarpaulins"; he still discussedthe question" Out of what sort of Men
the Officersof the Fleet are to be chosen . . ,2 and gave it as his opinion
that " there must be a mixturein the Navy of Gentlemenand Tarpaulins".3
Fromthe time of Draketo that of Halifax,a compromisebetweenthe two
groupsandan integrationof bothappearedto manypeopleas the idealsolution.
However,as in many other cases,no one quite knewhow this ideal was to be
attained. NeitherDrake,nor Pepys, nor Halifaxproduceda durablescheme
by meansof whichit couldbe put into practice. For as the seamenwerenot
gentlemenand the gentlemennot seamen, how was it possibleto devise a
unifiedscheme for the trainingand promotionof naval officerssatisfactory
to both groups?
1 Pepys, Tangier Papers, N.R.S.,

I935,

p.

I2r.

2p.

7.

3P-

22.