On the manner of negotiating with princes / On the uses of diplomacy; the choice of ministers and envoys; and the personal qualities necessary for success in missions abroad

by Monsieur de Callières

A Rule for the Diplomatic Service.

If one could establish a rule in France that no one should be employed in negotiation until he had passed some such apprenticeship as this, and had shown his capacity to profit by study and travel in rendering a good account of the countries which he had seen; and, further, if one could also establish the rule in the same manner that no high command in the army can be entrusted to an officer who has not made many campaigns, we should be more confident that the King would be well served in his negotiations, and that by these means he would be able to raise up around him a large number of reliable negotiators. This is a most desirable end, for as we have seen there are many actions in which the perfect practice of the art of negotiation is not less useful than that of war, and that in France at the present time the art of war stands far above that of diplomacy in public esteem.

Rewards for Service.

But as men are not yet perfect enough to serve without hope of reward, it is desirable that there should be in France a higher degree of honour and fortune for those who have deserved well of their country in diplomacy, as indeed there are in many other courts in Europe where the King’s subjects have gained high distinction in that branch of the public service. There are indeed countries in which the distinguished diplomatist may hope to reach the highest place and most exalted dignities in the realm, by which means we in France may learn to raise the profession of diplomacy to that degree of public recognition which it deserves, and from which the service of the King and the greatness of the kingdom must certainly profit.

On the Choice of Diplomatists.

The right choice of negotiators depends upon their personal quality, their training, and to some extent their fortune, and as the endowments of mankind vary in a wide degree, so it is found that one kind will fit better into the office of diplomacy than another. At the same time there are men of such wide capacity that they can be safely employed in very different enterprises, and even in very different countries. Such men by their adaptability, by the receptiveness of their nature, and the pliancy of their character are well fitted for the province of diplomacy, and quickly accommodate themselves to new surroundings. It should be the aim of all governments to develop a whole race of such men from whose ranks they may draw their diplomatic agents. It is true that in any one generation there will only be a few geniuses of the first order, and that the rank and file of the diplomatic service will be composed of persons of a more limited type, in which case it is all the more incumbent upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs to exercise the greatest care in assigning ambassadors to foreign posts. He must therefore be well acquainted with the whole service in order to know where to lay his hand upon the appropriate person for any given enterprise.

The Three Professions.

There are, broadly speaking, three principal human professions. The first is the Ecclesiastical; the second is that of the Gentlemen of the Sword, which besides those actually serving in the army includes courtiers and squires and other ranks of gentlemen in his Majesty’s service; and the third is the profession of the Law, whose devotees in France are called ‘Gentlemen of the Cloth.’ There are not many countries where ecclesiastics can be employed in diplomacy, for one cannot properly send them to heretical or infidel countries. At Rome, which appears to be their home, their attachment to the Pope, and their desire to receive honours from him as well as other benefits which depend upon service at his Court, undoubtedly places them under the suspicion of following too closely the Jesuitical maxims which rule papal policy, and often operate to the prejudice of the temporal power of other kings.

The Example of Venice.

The Republic of Venice has shown much wisdom in this matter, for she is so convinced of the partiality of Venetian prelates towards the Holy See that not only does she exclude them from all diplomatic offices in connection with the Court of Rome, but she actually excludes them from all discussion of the political relation between Venice and Rome. It is obvious indeed to all that a dignitary of the Church owes a divided allegiance, and it seems probable that where his loyalty to the Church conflicts with his loyalty to his sovereign, the former is likely to prevail. Indeed, the more closely one examines the proper duties of a bishop, for instance, the more firmly convinced does one become that these duties are not compatible with those of an ambassador; for on the one hand it is not fitting that a minister of religion should run about the world and thus neglect those duties which should have first claim upon him, and on the other, as we have seen, political and ecclesiastical allegiance may come into collision with disastrous results. And surely a state must be poorly endowed with men if it can find nowhere but in the Church a sufficiency of adept diplomatists. I am the last to dispute the great services which certain prelates have rendered to the French state in the past, but I consider it useful to be guided as a general rule by the foregoing considerations.