The Courtiers of Civilization

A Study of Diplomacy

Sasson Sofer

• Publisher: SUNY Press
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781438448923, 9781438448930
• eBook ISBN: 9781438448947
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Diplomacy & Treaties
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The professional diplomat frequently takes a back seat in the public imagination to such figures as the great heads of state and leading military figures. In The Courtiers of Civilization, Sasson Sofer aims to restore the importance and reputation of the diplomat in Western civilization. Drawing on an exhaustive reading of the vast literature on diplomacy, from the late Renaissance forward, he fashions an engaging portrait of the diplomat's milieu and lifestyle, his place in diplomatic rituals, and his role in international dialogue. Blending historical evidence, sociological analysis, and political thought, Sofer explores the vocational predicament faced by the diplomat, who must play many roles, including negotiator, honorable spy, horse trader, appeaser, and bureaucrat, while at the same time maneuvering in the world of rulers and warriors. Ultimately, the diplomat is a symbol of peace and a custodian of the virtues and norms of a civilized and functional international society—in sum a "courtier of civilization."

1

Notes on the Origins and Evolution of the Diplomatic Mission

DIPLOMACY HAS A civilizational standing, and agreed practices common to diverse political entities. It flourishes best in conditions of political fragmentation, where there is a measure of autonomy in the conduct of external affairs, and common norms exist. Diplomacy was founded out of necessity and based on common sense and reciprocity. Watson is right to comment that “We should be impressed by what seems permanent in diplomacy.”¹ We find rough similarities in the evolution of diplomacy, namely, the despatch of emissaries of high social standing, provision of immunity to envoys, and the ornamentation of practice with rituals and ceremonies.

Prehistorical diplomacy, sometimes referred to as the anthropological stage in the evolution of diplomacy, is shrouded by speculation, but is also characterized by prodigious optimism. This assumed “state of nature” points to a measure of rational calculation and a desire to cooperate with others. The reverse may, indeed, also be inferred. The decline of diplomacy is an indication of human failure, if not of a civilizational crisis.

In the midst of historical turmoil, or a golden age, the principal actor of diplomacy—the ambassador, envoy, or herald—endures. Their existential predicament never changes as they constantly remain dependent on the ruling class. For a very long time preoccupation with diplomacy required courage, a quality not naturally associated with diplomats. Diplomats were confronted by hazards on various fronts—the whims and vagaries of their sovereigns, the risks encountered during their travels, and the vicissitudes awaiting them in foreign countries. The safety of diplomats, despite all their immunity and privileges, was precarious at best. This continues to be the case.

Diplomacy was neither a feature of all human civilizations nor a preconceived idea. Although, we have no conclusive evidence about the origins of ancient diplomacy, the circumstances of its beginnings were quite harsh. The relations between alien tribes, usually accompanied by rituals and taboos, reveal a recurrent design, that of sending emissaries in periods of war and peace. Diplomatic practices evolved out of necessity, sanctioned by custom and religion and fortified by reciprocity.² Magic and religious sanctity augmented the belief that heralds possessed a supernatural power that it would be fatal to violate.³ It was found both practical and necessary to have emissaries whose lives had to be protected.

Throughout history emissaries were men of high social standing, a fact that facilitated their task of mediation, but did not protect them from the hardships of their occupation. From the very beginning, certain human qualities were associated with the diplomatic character—caution, fair judgment, politeness in facing the more powerful, and the ability to handle delicate social and political situations. In these imagined diplomatic encounters of the past, diplomatic envoys were quite limited in their capacity to influence the basic circumstances of their mission, and they must have relied on a strong feeling of self-identity as well as on an intuitive understanding of the other side.

The immunity that allowed diplomatic missions to be accomplished originated in a universal bond, that of a religious sanction. But the safety of the diplomat, even given the existence of this sanction, could be violated. Diplomats were vulnerable to punishment, imprisonment, or even execution. They were also considered to be strangers who had to undergo ritual purification before being permitted to perform their mission.⁴

The controversy about the origin of diplomacy reached a culminating point with the introduction of the diplomatic tradition of the Ancient Near East. Whether the Amarna and Mari archives constitute evidence of a well-developed diplomatic practice preceded by many centuries, but also leading to the classical period of Greece and Rome, is of less importance for understanding the role of diplomatic practitioners. It seems that they carried out a similar repertoire of actions. Diplomacy, however, throughout all ages and regions, is still assessed, measured, and evaluated by Western standards. This, of course, does not negate the achievements of the ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. Diplomacy is not a strictly Western phenomenon. Evidently, wherever civilization blossomed, diplomacy flourished, though European diplomacy was the most developed and the most influential.

The problem of dating and interpreting historical events and ancient texts is still a formidable one, and the evaluation of the diplomacy of the ancient Near Eastern ranges from one that was sophisticated and efficient to one that was rudimentary and crude.⁵ What we know about the diplomats of the ancient Near East is based on about 50 documents (out of 350) dating from the mid-fourteenth century B.C., found at Tel Al-Amarna, Egypt, in 1887. The later discovery of the Royal archive of Mari dating from the first half of the eighteenth century B.C., testifies to the continuity of the same diplomatic tradition.⁶ Correspondents with Egypt in the Amarna letters are Mittani, Hatti, Assyria, and Babylonia. The letters were written on clay tablets in cuneiform script. The language of most of the letters is Akkadian, the presumed lingua franca of that period.

A diplomatic envoy of the Mari and the Amarna periods may have been well qualified, and was usually of a high standing in court. He had, first and foremost, to survive the battle of gladiators in conditions of uncertainty and risk. There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that messengers carried a formal document recognized by all parties to safeguard their journey to the country of their mission. Ambassadorial activity was hazardous, and escort troops were frequently needed against attack. Envoys traveled together as a group; their companions could have been soldiers or fellow messengers. Envoys did not escape imprisonment, and the possibility of being kidnapped or even assassinated. Even if the custom of hospitality existed, not every kingdom was in full control of its territory.⁷

The relationship between allied rulers was perceived as one of kinship, fraternity, or subordination, which could affect the attitude toward envoys. Courtesy and respect were reflected in the envoy’s reception, escort, and timely dismissal. Permission to leave was at the discretion of the host king, a privilege that allowed for the possibility of exerting pressure on or intimidating the envoy.⁸

It is not clear to what extent envoys were free to fulfill their tasks. They could be invited to important state functions, but envoys of hostile kingdoms could also be kept outside the city gates. In the case of allied powers, envoys were put up in a designated residence, and the host king provided for their daily needs. The envoy’s functions may look familiar to us—to report on political conditions, gather information on military affairs, and arrange for the exchange of gifts and royal visits.⁹

There is no evidence for a permanent residence in the ancient Near East. Even when envoys stayed for a long period of time, their appointment was for a specific purpose, conveying strictly the message of their sovereign. Nonetheless, there is evidence of instances, including the important case of a delegation to Hammurabi, the Babylonian king, where it was left to the discretion of the envoys to work out the details of a possible agreement. In the absence of valid norms, however, the rise and fall of the diplomacy of the ancient Near East rested on the exact interpretation of reciprocal acts and impressions understood only by their ad-hoc terms.

The diplomatic traditions of the two ancient empires of India and China, which were in a regular contact with other civilizations, are presented almost as a digression in the history of diplomacy. The diplomacy of India flourished in the fourth century B.C. Kautilya, counselor to King Chandragupta, was almost a contemporary of Aristotle, and it would seem that his notorious Arthashastra was composed following Alexander’s invasion of India.¹⁰ Diplomacy is presented as the inherent art of government, where crafty diplomats labored in contentious fronts among sixteen nations (Mahajanapadas). Envoys, usually appointed for ad-hoc missions, could have full power to negotiate. The rank of an ambassador (duta) was given to a select few, and those who were closest to the king.¹¹ The stratagems of Indian diplomacy were judged by the results they produced, where the best guarantee for a treaty was the king’s good faith.

Indian envoys appear to have been accorded the broadest repertoire possible. It could have ranged from the clandestine and treacherous, to the dharma, the moral code of righteousness and duty.¹² Indian diplomacy tended toward realpolitik. Beyond maintaining alliances, gathering information, and transmitting the views of kings, envoys were required to threaten, appease, or exert pressure, sow dissention, incite a revolt against a warring king, and be a divisive force in court.

Indian emissaries were instructed to prepare themselves, mentally and physically, for their mission, and reflect on their likely diplomatic presentation and maneuvers. An envoy has to be precise in the delivery of his message, regardless of the reaction to its content. He was immune, in principle, as he was merely repeating the words of his master, but he had to be on his guard against various dangers and be prepared to escape. Indeed, he was required to be permanently cautious, avoid women and drink, and sleep alone. Being subject to clandestine practices and the violation of the law, the envoy’s precarious situation was inherent in Indian diplomacy.

Chinese ancient diplomacy was a secluded and self-creating domain. The Empire was regarded as the center of the world, the rest being left to the Barbarian quarters. It was an ethnocentric dichotomy that has impeded the integration of China into international politics.

Chinese diplomacy flourished when the country was not unified, between the eighth and the third centuries B.C.¹³ The Chinese emissary had to accommodate himself into a tight and ritualistic world, full of violence and mistrust, where his safety was precarious and his obedience to the emperor was absolute. It seems also, that his social status was quite low. The plight of a foreign envoy was even worse. Barbarians were ranked as no more than unequal vassals, and had to go through the humiliating Kowtow ceremony.

Despite imperial whims and restriction, Chinese envoys played an essential role as emissaries between warring Chinese states, conveying their masters’ orders, but doing so on a temporary basis and with no permanent residency.

Ancient Greece was the battleground of internal stasis and rivalry for hegemony. However, the Greeks shared a common culture that allowed diplomacy to be conducted among equals, albeit with a manifest ethnocentric identity. Greek diplomacy was conducted publicly, and internal dissentions and inflammatory rhetoric were an integral part of its repertoire, while alliances and external commitments were not always abiding. Pan-Hellenic institutions and religious festivities played a restrictive role, and constituted a forum for consultation.¹⁴ By most accounts, Greek diplomacy is not considered to be highly developed, particularly, in the formal aspects of the diplomatic practice. The institution of the proxenia should be evaluated differently. The proxenos may be regarded as playing one of the most innovative roles in the evolution of diplomacy.

Diplomatic emissaries in ancient Greece are denoted by a variety of terms—kerykes (heralds), presbeis (envoys), and angeloi (messengers). None of the three ranks was ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Chapter 1: Notes on the Origins and Evolution of the Diplomatic Mission
• Chapter 2: Voices for Diplomacy: Statesmen, Diplomats, and Philosophers
• Chapter 3: Conventions and Rituals
• Chapter 4: The Diplomatic Forum
• Chapter 5: Credentials of Words
• Chapter 6: Diplomats and Their Milieu
• Chapter 7: The Courtiers of Civilization
• Chapter 8: Diplomacy Reconsidered
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index
• Back Cover