It is a pity that the word diplomacy, like the word criticism, has been endowed with a popular meaning which is really a travesty of its true sense. When Sir Henry Wotton half humorously inscribed in a friend's album the definition of an ambassador as a man sent abroad to lie for his country, he gave an inflection to the word diplomacy from which it has scarcely recovered. But such a definition is quite as farfetched as Coleridge's famous description of a critic as a failure in original literature. Criticism is the most difficult of all arts, and to allow the idea to germinate that Coleridge's definition was a correct one is as ridiculous as to accept Sir Henry Wotton's definition of a diplomatist. It is like taking Stiggins and Chadband as types of the church, or Messrs. Dodson & Fogg as specimens of the law.
Diplomacy is the means by which the relations of nations are kept up and from this it has come to mean the judicious handling of political and other relations so as to attain harmonious conditions. Unfortunately because there have been diplomatists who have adopted questionable methods, just as there have been clergymen and lawyers who have done the same thing, popular opinion has seized on the less desirable traits, and degraded the word largely to their level. Yet really there has never been a time in the world when it was more necessary that a man's opinion of diplomacy should be exalted rather than debased. The powers which lie in the hands of the diplomatist are so immense that he may do untold good or evil in proportion as he exercises them well or badly. How important all this is may be gathered from a paragraph on page 277 of "The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany." where Mrs. Eddy writes: "In reply to your question, 'Should difficulties between the United States and Spain be settled peacefully by statesmanship and diplomacy, in a way honorable and satisfactory to both nations?' I will say I can see no other way of settling difficulties between individuals and nations than by means of their wholesome tribunals, equitable laws, and sound, well-kept treaties."
In those words Mrs. Eddy shows her respect for, and reliance on, law and diplomacy. But it is obvious that the diplomacy she has in view is not the trickery of the dishonest individual nor the astuteness of the subtle politician. What she is thinking of is the man whose understanding of Principle guides him to a decision in accordance with law, which is itself the operation of Principle. The diplomatist, then, who is to be of real service to his country and mankind, must be chosen for some reason other than the rewards of party, and for qualities other than those that make an adroit politician. He must be a man who has tempered his intelligence in the effort to weigh every decision with Truth, a man who has realized that he is not sent abroad to lie for his country, but is sent abroad to be an example of the integrity, the justice, and the honorableness of his country. He can, however, only stand as such an example to the extent of his own sense of Principle. If he imagines, for one moment, that he can substitute astuteness for justice, or hypocrisy for honor, he may hold his own, but it will only be because the material forces behind are sufficient to maintain him. The names of many ambassadors of such a nature have been recorded in history, but the nations who have relied upon them have ultimately paid the penalty, because they have reduced their diplomacy to the level of the instruments they have sent to represent them, or because those instruments have represented the moral level of their employers.
