by A diary connecting a modern great power agreement to a century of colonial diplomatic theatre
I have spent the better part of a decade reading eighteenth century colonial correspondence and pamphlet literature professionally, an entire genre built substantially around the specific gap between the ceremonial ambition described in a treaty’s public announcement and the considerably murkier, considerably less discussed technical detail buried in its actual clauses, and reading this week’s coverage of the approved Saudi nuclear deal, I found myself reaching for exactly that same critical lens, since the underlying choreography of great power diplomacy, considerable public ceremony surrounding the signing, considerably thinner public scrutiny of the actual safeguarding provisions, has changed remarkably little across roughly two hundred and fifty years of documented practice.
The Deal
According to the coverage of the approved Saudi nuclear deal, the agreement has received considerable attention for its diplomatic significance, and having spent years reading eighteenth century treaty pamphlets covering comparably significant colonial and continental agreements, I recognise the pattern immediately, extensive coverage of the signing ceremony itself, its symbolic weight, the handshakes and the toasts, considerably thinner coverage of the specific provisions that will actually determine the agreement’s genuine long term consequences for the people living under its terms.
I pulled several eighteenth century treaty pamphlets for direct comparison this week, and the parallel held remarkably well, pamphleteers of that era consistently devoted the overwhelming majority of their column space to describing the pageantry of a signing, the specific colours worn, the specific toasts offered, while relegating the treaty’s actual substantive terms to a brief, often poorly explained paragraph near the very end, a structural imbalance in public attention that I do not think has genuinely changed despite every subsequent revolution in how news actually gets delivered to readers.
A Specific Pamphlet Example
The particular 1763 treaty pamphlet I keep returning to for comparison devoted nearly four full pages to describing the ceremonial procession preceding the signing, the specific carriages used, the specific order of precedence among attending dignitaries, and just under half a page to the treaty’s actual territorial and trading provisions, a ratio that struck me, reading it fresh this week, as almost exactly proportional to how this week’s Saudi deal coverage has been distributed across the outlets I follow, ceremony generously covered, substance considerably compressed.
What the Pamphleteers Themselves Admitted
Several contemporary critics of this exact imbalance wrote openly about it even then, one particularly sharp essayist accusing the press of his own era of treating treaty coverage as theatre criticism rather than genuine political reporting, a complaint that reads, adjusted only for vocabulary, almost exactly like contemporary media criticism of how major diplomatic agreements get covered today.
What the Century Actually Teaches
The genuine value of reading this period closely, I think, is recognising that this imbalance between ceremony and substance is not a failure of modern journalism specifically but a considerably older, more structural feature of how the public has always been asked to understand consequential agreements, entertainment and reassurance offered generously, genuine technical understanding offered considerably more sparingly.
A Genuinely Final Note
I have added both the pamphlet and the essayist’s critique of it to a growing folder I maintain specifically on ceremony versus substance in diplomatic coverage across two centuries, a project I intend to keep building whenever a comparable modern agreement gives me fresh material to work with, which, on recent evidence, happens with fairly reliable regularity.
Reading Around
I checked the coverage of international pressure regarding Gaza for wider regional context, since agreements of this scale rarely exist separate from the broader diplomatic picture.
I also had a look at Harriet Collins’s writing on the desk, whose instinct for connecting separate diplomatic stories matches my own historical approach fairly closely.
What I Am Reading Next
I have already pulled two further treaty pamphlets from a slightly later period for comparison, curious whether the ceremony to substance ratio shifted at all as print journalism matured across the later eighteenth century, or whether it held remarkably steady regardless of the considerable other changes happening in how news was produced and distributed during that same window.
Pamphlet archive closed for real tonight, comparison complete, lamp finally off.
A Postscript Worth Adding
I want to note, for completeness, that not every eighteenth century treaty pamphlet followed this same ceremony heavy pattern, a small handful of more rigorous publications did attempt genuine technical explanation of treaty terms, though these were consistently the less popular, less widely circulated titles, evidence that the public appetite itself, not merely editorial choice, shaped which version of coverage actually reached the widest audience.
Diary Close
Pamphlet archive closed for tonight, comparison filed, ceremony noted in detail, substance, as ever, left for a considerably more patient future reading than any single news cycle currently allows. I will report back on whatever the later pamphlets show, whether the pattern held steady or shifted meaningfully as the period’s journalism matured further. A small but genuine reminder that popularity, not just editorial judgement, shapes which version of history’s first draft actually survives to be read again centuries later. Notebook shut for tonight, this particular archive session finally complete. Truly complete this time, and I mean that.
