The Duke’s remarks show how important it is in every respect to choose the right man for the diplomatic service, and, in order to give the Foreign Minister an adequate freedom of choice, his diplomatic service should contain men of different characters and a wide variety of accomplishments. Thus he will not be compelled to send an unsuitable man merely because he was the only one available. He should have most careful regard in this choice to the type of government and the religion which prevails in the foreign country in question. There used to be a jest current in Paris on this very subject. The French King had sent a bishop to Constantinople and an heretic to Rome, and it was said that the one had gone to convert the Grand Turk and the other to be converted by the Pope!
The Persona Ingrata.
Apart from any higher consideration, it is a mere measure of prudence to avoid sending an envoy who may be presumed to be a persona ingrata at the foreign court, for he will certainly, whether he will or not, create a prejudice against his own country and will be quite unable to meet his competitors in diplomacy on equal terms, for he will start with the handicap of unpopularity. The Foreign Minister, therefore, should not wait until matters go wrong at a foreign capital, but should be in a position, when each appointment is made, to know the character of the new ambassador, and thus to veto a bad appointment. This, alas, is not by any means always the case. I do not need to enter upon a minute examination of the faults to avoid and the virtues to encourage in the complete diplomat. I have already said enough to show where my opinion lies in a general way. I will only add one or two further considerations. I said a few moments ago that loose living is a great handicap in diplomacy; but, since there is no rule which has not some exception, let me point out that a too abstemious negotiator will miss many opportunities of finding out what is going on. Especially in the northern countries the diplomat who loves a glass will quickly make friends among ministers, though, to be sure, he should drink in such a manner as not to lose control of his own faculties while endeavouring to loosen the self-control of others.
The Nation judged by its Servants.
In diplomacy a nation is judged by its ministers, and its whole reputation may rest upon the popularity or unpopularity of an ambassador. In this respect the personal conduct of the ambassador and his staff is almost as important as the policy with which he is charged, for the success of the policy will depend largely upon the actual relations which exist between the two nations. The ambassador is, as it were, the very embodiment of these relations, and if a proper adept in his profession will know how to turn every occasion to advantage. I need not repeat my tale of the qualities and practices by which such advantage may be drawn from the current of events, but I may perhaps point out that obviously men of birth and breeding are better able to discharge the kind of function which I have described. Their rank will command a certain respect, and the qualities usually inherited by those of good birth should stand them in good stead at a foreign court. At the same time such qualities must not be regarded as more than a foundation. They cannot in themselves equip a diplomatist for his office. He must by assiduous application acquire the other necessary qualities, for there is no man more liable to suspicion than he who plumes himself on an experience which he does not possess. Further, it is usually unwise to entrust important negotiations to young men, who are commonly presumptuous and vain as well as indiscreet. Old age is equally inappropriate. The best time of life is its prime, in which you find experience, discretion, and moderation, combined with vigour.
Men of Letters.
Other things being equal, I prefer a man of letters before one who has not made a habit of study, for his reading will give him a certain equipment which he might otherwise lack. It will adorn his conversation and supply him with the necessary historic setting in which to place his own negotiations; whereas an ignorant man will be able to quote nothing but the will of his master, and will thus present his argument in a naked and unattractive form. It must be obvious that the knowledge gained in a lifetime of reading is an important adjunct in diplomacy, and above all, the reading of history is to be preferred, for without it the negotiator will be unable to understand the meaning of historical allusions made by other diplomatists, and may thus miss the whole point at some important turn in negotiations. And since it is not enough to think aright, the diplomatist must be able to translate his thoughts into the right language, and conversely he must be able to pierce behind the language of others to their true thoughts. It may often happen that an historical allusion will reveal the purpose of a minister’s mind far better than any direct argument. Herein lies the importance of culture in diplomacy. The name of orator has sometimes been given to ambassadors because in certain past times they have been in the habit of delivering their instructions in the form of an eloquent address; but diplomatic eloquence is a very different thing from that of Parliament or the Bar. An ambassador’s speeches should contain more sense than words, and he should studiously avoid every affectation. His aim should be to arouse the minds of his hearers by a sympathetic touch, after which it will be easy to deliver his message in an appropriate way. He should therefore at the outset think rather of what is in their minds than of immediately expressing what is in his own. It is in this that true eloquence consists, and indeed the words I have just used are the beginning and end of all diplomacy.
The Fitting Mode of Address.
In general his mode of address, whether he speak to the sovereign or to his ministers, should be moderate and reserved. He should not raise his voice but should maintain the ordinary conversational tone, at once simple and dignified, revealing an innate respect both for his own high office and for the person whom he is addressing. He should, above all things, avoid the prolix, pompous approach which is natural to princes who attach more importance to ceremonial than to the essence of any matter. But if the ambassador be called upon to deliver his message to a Senate or a Parliament, he will bear in mind that the means for gaining the good graces of an individual and of an assembly are by no means the same. In such public speech he may permit himself a certain freedom of rhetoric, but even here he must beware of prolonging his speech beyond a tolerable limit. The reply of the Spartans to ambassadors from the Isle of Samos stands as a warning for all times against prolixity: ‘We have forgotten the beginning of your harangue; we paid no heed to the middle of it, and nothing has given us pleasure in it except the end.’ God forbid that any French negotiator should receive so damning a rebuff!
The Well-Stored Mind.