Addressing audiences abroad: cultural and public diplomacy in seventeenth-century Europe

ABSTRACT

This special issue highlights the interactions between diplomats and wider audiences in their host country during the seventeenth century. The dynamic and complex relationships between diplomats and foreign audiences in the early modern period have remained somewhat under the radar. While concepts such as “soft power”, “cultural diplomacy”, and “public diplomacy” have been developed by scholars of international relations in the twentieth century to describe and analyse twentieth-century realities, we argue that early modern historians can draw inspiration from these concepts to start answering the questions how, why, and when different European states and their representatives addressed foreign audiences abroad. Taking such an approach will expand our understanding of the strategies and tools diplomats had at their disposal to engage with different audiences. We conclude this approach has the potential to open new avenues of research into the history of symbolic communication, news, public opinion, as well as early modern international relations.

Keywords:

• Early modern diplomacy
• public diplomacy
• cultural diplomacy
• symbolic communication
• news media

At the European courts of the end of the seventeenth century, all eyes were on Madrid.¹ The unfortunate and childless king Charles II (1661–1700) was awaiting his long-anticipated death, and tensions about the Spanish succession reached a climax. The houses of Bourbon, Habsburg, and Wittelsbach were pressuring him for a testament favouring their own pretenders to the Spanish throne. Diplomats, agents, and ministers lobbied behind the scenes and at government tables. The battle was fought to the same extent in the public spaces, most visibly in the ceremonial entries of the numerous diplomats arriving in Madrid. With official entries into their host city, ambassadors tried to impress large crowds by showcasing the wealth and power of their ruler. These entries were forms of symbolic communication, and as such open to a myriad of interpretations.² Printed accounts, newspaper reports, prints, and paintings informed multiple and distant audiences about the symbolism and scale of these spectacles.³

The mission of the Austrian ambassadors to Madrid from 1697 to 1700 shows that entries were crucial to convince various audiences at this delicate political moment. Ferdinand Bonaventura Harrach and his son Aloys Thomas Harrach needed to persuade Charles II and his entourage to accept an Austrian archduke as the universal heir to the Spanish throne. Their mission failed, since it was their French adversary Henri d’Harcourt who eventually managed to convince Charles II to name Philip of Anjou as his heir. While historians have explained d’Harcourt’s success by his superior ability to forge alliances at court, some contemporaries also pointed at another reason for the failure of the Harrachs’ mission: their unimpressive entries into Madrid, which were a huge disappointment to the ceremony-loving Spaniards.⁴ As one prominent observer wrote:

He [Aloys Thomas Harrach] had the advantage of making his entry several days after the marshal d’Harcourt, and, although he had seen that the latter had made his [entry] with extraordinary magnificence and similar applause of the crowd (that very much loves outward appearance, certainly for this kind of occasions), Harrach made his own [entry] so poorly, so stingily and so miserably that, given that the death of the king followed quickly, it had terrible effects for the Germans and incredible results for France. It is impossible to say to what extent this trifle was useful to the House of Bourbon.⁵

This fragment illustrates that early modern diplomats not only needed to excell at negotiating and communicating with ministers, secretaries, and fellow diplomats, but also had to communicate effectively with a broader audience in the host country. To what extent Aloys Thomas Harrach’s entry contributed to the failure of his mission and Charles II’s choice for a Bourbon heir is difficult to say, but at least some prominent witnesses felt that a great opportunity had been missed.

This special issue highlights the interactions between diplomats and wider audiences in their host country during the seventeenth century. The “wider audiences” – a term that covers a number of partly overlapping audiences both at home and abroad – refers to those groups that were not the diplomats’ direct political interlocutors. In the past two decades, under the influence of New Diplomatic History, numerous publications and case studies have shifted our focus from affairs of state such as peace negotiations towards the process of searching for compromises and solutions with official and less official interlocutors.⁶ Historians and literary scholars are also increasingly employing terms such as “soft power”, “public diplomacy”, and “cultural diplomacy”, developed in the field of twentieth-century international relations, to describe early modern diplomatic practices.

In 2016, two articles were published that reflected on the usefulness of these concepts to study premodern diplomatic practices. Harriet Rudolph actually proposed avoiding them altogether, because public and cultural diplomacy have no suitable early modern equivalents.⁷ Without denying the importance of symbolic communication in early modern diplomacy, she argued that these concepts refer to activities in which diplomats themselves do not necessarily participate. While Rudolph dismissed the concepts as anachronist, Helmer Helmers suggested that they help to trace crucial developments in the history of news and the development of the so-called public sphere.⁸ To Helmers, the diplomat’s active involvement in controlling and circulating information led to transnational political debates. His article was a first attempt to gather dispersed evidence, and has since then inspired scholars to conduct further research into the development of public diplomacy.⁹ He raised the question whether approaches to public diplomacy differed between states and whether some of these differences could be explained by distinct forms of government. Here, we aim to provide some provisional answers and fill part of the gap.

With this special issue, we aim to show that early modern historians can fruitfully draw inspiration from international relations to start answering the question how, why, and when different European states and their representatives addressed foreign audiences abroad. As John Watkins, a leading scholar of premodern diplomacy, has recently proclaimed: “we cannot let fear of anachronism drive us into antiquarianism”.¹⁰ A dialogue between fields of (diplomatic) history and international relations is a fruitful and worthwhile endeavour. Rudolph’s observation that ambassadors are often not directly involved in public diplomacy may be accurate for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, but in the premodern period, with no specialised bureaus and agencies, it were precisely diplomats themselves who increasingly recognised the importance of communicating with foreign audiences. Herein lies perhaps a structural difference between premodern and more contemporary forms of public and cultural diplomacy.

Building on a thorough understanding of the concepts of soft power and public and cultural diplomacy, we focus on forms of symbolic communication that were intimitaley connected to court studies, and were therefore essential to conduct diplomatic activities. We also highlight the emerging research on the diplomatic use of the printing press to reach and influence broader and different audiences. The five contributors in this issue focus on the actions of seventeenth-century diplomats residing in England, the Dutch Republic, France, the Habsburg Monarchy, and Denmark. They explore how individual diplomats used their entourage, gifts, fashion and textiles (in kind but also in images), festivities as well as a variety of printed media to send messages to different but overlapping audiences across Europe. Taken together, these case studies show that diplomats were conscious of audiences in their home land, their host country, and in other countries as well. However, they had to compete with other players to be able to control the framing and interpretation of their messages. Despite a proliferation of studies and special issues on early modern diplomatic practices, the dynamic and complex relationships between diplomats and audiences in the early modern period have remained somewhat under the radar.¹¹ Examining how diplomats engaged with different audiences gives us insight into how these interactions affected public debates, as well as in the mechanisms of international relations.

Concepts

Both historians and political scientists often use the terms “soft power”, “public diplomacy”, and “cultural diplomacy” interchangeably.¹² While these concepts may refer to similar practices, they can mean very different things. Hence, it is vital to understand their history. Coined in 2004 by political scientist Joseph Nye, “soft power” is “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments”. According to Nye, “it arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced”.¹³ To phrase it differently: if you can convince your interlocutors by means of shared values and if you are seen as a credible and trustworthy partner, it is easier to accomplish your goals without having to resort to threats or other inducements. Hence, international relations expert Jan Melissen calls soft power “the postmodern variant of power over opinion”.¹⁴ Crucially, he underlines that soft power instruments such as public diplomacy can definitely have hard power goals.¹⁵

Soft power resources create the right environment to conduct policy in an indirect way, and their effects can be very diffuse. As a result, they are often difficult to measure. We can partly resolve this by looking at public and cultural diplomacy, two concrete mechanisms in which soft power resources are deployed. “Public diplomacy” is the art of engaging with foreign audiences to advance and achieve (government) policies. A country or institution wants to change attitudes or strengthen existing beliefs by trying to convince a foreign (informed) audience to exert pressure on its government. “Cultural diplomacy” is the exchange of cultural products (art, manufactured goods, language, literature) and ideas in international relations to foster mutual understanding. Scholars use the term often to refer to both the export of cultural objects as well as to the exchanging artists and scholars between countries.¹⁶

Contrary to what one might expect, the term “public diplomacy” has a far longer history than “soft power”, which is why public diplomacy and propaganda are often equated. In 1965, retired American diplomat Edmund Gullion used the term “public diplomacy” to understand the influence of public attitudes on the execution of foreign policy.¹⁷ As a far more respectable alternative to the by then very negative word “propaganda”, public diplomacy gained currency within the diplomatic and intelligence community of the United States during the Cold War. The fact that public diplomacy and old-style propaganda by foreign agencies often blended together makes it challenging to distinguish between the two. Nevertheless, thanks to the ongoing discussion in the field, scholars have been able to highlight some crucial differences. Both terms refer to forms of persuasive (mass) communication, but propaganda is a far more deliberate attempt to shape and manipulate opinions through controlled transmission of one-sided messages. Public diplomacy, on the other hand, attaches great value to the beliefs of the other party. Jan Melissen has described it as a “two-way street”: it involves listening as well as talking, and establishing stable relations is even more important than specific policy campaigns.¹⁸ To be able to influence your target audience, it is crucial that you understand how they are hearing and receiving your messages. Still, the distinction between public diplomacy and propaganda, especially with regard to the seventeenth century, remains subtle and at times difficult to make. What the different contributions to this special volume show, is that early modern diplomats who employ methods of public diplomacy always have their own goals in mind as well.

The listening and learning aspect is treated extensively in one of the most rigorous analyses of public diplomacy: Nicholas J. Cull’s report from 2009, initially commissioned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom.¹⁹ It proposes a five-part taxonomy, examines how to use each component succesfully, and also discusses prominent examples of failure. According to Cull, the five components are:

1. listening (collecting information and using the data for redirecting policies);

2. advocacy (concrete undertakings to promote ideas, policies or interests, for example through embassy press relations);

3. cultural diplomacy (facilitating cultural encounters and transferring cultural achievements);

4. exchange diplomacy (usually sending and receiving citizens for a period of study);

5. international broadcasting (with news being the central aspect).

Following Cull’s taxonomy, a lot of scholars consider cultural diplomacy a subset of public diplomacy.²⁰ However, for the seventeenth century, we argue that public and cultural diplomacy are parallel strategies to address and influence audiences abroad. In premodern cultural diplomacy, the exchange of cultural products was deliberately aimed at a well-defined target audience to maximise positive reception. During ceremonies and festivities, direct interactions between diplomatic actors and their intended audiences was key. Public diplomacy, on the other hand, with news reports, handwritten and printed accounts and printed images as its main vehicles, reached a wider, less defined and more anonymous audience that was difficult to control.

International relations experts have only recently emphasised that not just modern nation states, but also supranational institutions and non-state actors, such as NGO’s, firms, and individuals, are important actors. Today, supranational institutions such as the EU, nation states, and sub-state entities, such as Flanders all acknowledge the strategic value of cultural diplomacy.²¹ Belgium’s succesful campaign to obtain a two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council in June 2018 exemplifies how modern nation states use culture to obtain a more favourable international position. In April 2018, the Belgian king and queen, as well as the minister of foreign affairs, welcomed more than four hundred guests to a reception at the occasion of the “Power and Grace” exhibition in New York’s Morgan Library and Museum, which featured drawings of celebrated seventeenth-century masters such as Peter Paul Rubens, Anthony van Dyck, and Jacob Jordaens. At the reception, guests were offered Belgian beer, chocolates, mussels and fries. This example illustrates the blend between cultural diplomacy and nation branding.²² Even though some scholars consider nation branding to be a novel development, there were definitely similar notions at work in premodern Europe, at least as far as deliberate attention to marketing is concerned, as is shown by the example of Louis XIV and the dissemination of French culture in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century.²³

Up until now, historians, political scientists and diplomats have primarily used the terms “soft power” and “public” and “cultural diplomacy” to describe twentieth- and twenty-first-century practices.²⁴ They have focused among others on the famous broadcast “Voice of America” (°1942) during the Cold War, student exchanges such as the Fulbright program (°1946), organisations such as the Alliance française (°1883) and the Goethe-Institut (°1951) with their mission to promote the French and German language and culture respectively, as well as the “Family of Man” exhibition in the 1950s and 1960s. The role of diplomats and the various specialised offices was to support these programmes for the benefit of their country and government, so that official relations could operate within a friendly cultural framework.²⁵ None of these initiatives has an exact equivalent in premodern times, but these definitions and insights still offer us something to explore in the interactions between early modern states, their representatives, and foreign audiences. They can help us see the connection between practices which were previously seen as separate and search for further evidence of strategies that were hardly noticed at all up until now.

Historicising cultural diplomacy

The underlying idea behind the concepts of public and cultural diplomacy – conveying messages to foreign audiences to create goodwill and subsequently strengthen one’s strategic position – is centuries old. Inspired by Hugo Grotius’s famous phrase that war was the last resort of kings (ultima ratio regum), American cultural attaché and scholar Richard T. Arndt claims that cultural diplomacy was actually their first resort. His prime example is Alexander the Great, who established a highly assimilative empire in which Hellenistic culture came to integrate local elements from all over his lands. One of his successors, the Seleucid Ptolemy I, built the magnificent public library in Alexandria, which quickly became the major centre of learning in the Mediterranean.²⁶ Whether these examples can truly be classified as cultural diplomacy is debatable, but they do illustrate the importance of culture for state building and enhancing the prestige of the ruler. Arndt’s introduction proves that there is a need to study how cultural diplomacy was conducted before the twentieth century. Few historians have paid attention to these issues in the past, and even fewer have drawn on the concepts from the field of international relations to analyse such processes in the premodern period.

In the early modern era, the concept of “the state” as an abstract entity, a distinct power structure to which all subjects owed their duties, did not exist.²⁷ Some of the more modern connotations of the state can be traced in some works by sixteenth-century political thinkers such as Francesco Guicciardini and Niccolò Machiavelli. Later theorists, such as Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, developed the idea of the state in the tradition of natural-law absolutism, i.e. as impersonal in a double way: distinct from rulers and ruled. During the same period, there was also a revival of the personal conception of politics, driven by divine-right advocates of absolute monarchy. Many officials, political philosophers, and statesmen largely adopted a more personal, charismatic vision of the state, which was supposed to be intimately associated with the prince. Political power was not independent of those in charge of the government apparatus, and, as Lucien Bély has argued, it was still a “society of princes” in which foreign policy was to no small extent driven by dynastic agendas: wars, territorial conquest, and peace treaties all served the glory of the ruler.²⁸ As a result, it is almost impossible to make a clear distinction between images of the state and images of the prince. Diplomats first and foremost represented their sovereign rather than the state. The sovereign personified the whole of the polity and was thought to represent the interests of all of his subjects. Mirella Marini’s contribution to this special issue about the efforts of the Archdukes Albert and Isabel to approach James VI/I in 1603 exemplifies this idea very well. Their extraordinary ambassador to London, Charles of Arenberg, had to establish friendly relations not between two abstract states, but between two dynastic houses.

With premodern diplomatic history shifting its focus from the state to princely courts and dynasties, scholars have devoted far more attention to the importance of diplomatic ceremony and the diplomat’s public appearance.²⁹ The seminal publications by German historian Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger on symbolic communication have led to an increase in studies on the role of rituals, gift-giving, and material culture in international relations.³⁰ A substantial and growing body of work analyses how diplomats used gifts, works of art, theatre, and opera to convey political messages.³¹ Some of these practices resemble modern cultural diplomacy initiatives: the actors used different forms of culture and the audiences were clearly defined and usually carefully selected.

The court, with its elaborate ceremonies and festivities, was the main arena for diplomatic symbolic communication. At foreign courts, diplomats were both participants and spectators with their own part to play. They relied on courtly activities to convey images of their own monarch and state to the country they were stationed in. At the same time, diplomats also observed courtiers, nobles, foreign visitors, and fellow ambassadors. According to literary scholar Ellen Welch, court festivities such as music, dancing and fireworks, as well as theatre plays and opera performances, did not just mirror or comment on international relations; they played an active role in shaping international relations. Crucially, ambassadors were not the only actors on the scene spreading messages. Different agents in the host country relied on similar activities to influence envoys and agents. As Welch argues, court entertainment was probably more meant to impress foreign spectators, including the resident ambassadors, rather than domestic onlookers.³²

During the peace negotiations in Münster (1646–1648), various delegations tried to claim a more prominent role at the negotiating table by means of festivities. The French diplomats’ residence developed into some sort of extension of the French court, where plays and ballets were performed. François Ogier’s Ballet de la Paix helped to imagine the possibilities of peace and concord. Characters such as Time and Mercury, and scenes representing the disastrous consequences of fighting as well as the options for the different nations to build peace, urged the assembled diplomats to undertake action. According to Welch, as a whole, the ballet transformed the spectators into “members of a coherent community bound by shared professional values, Christianity and nobility”.³³

Diplomats carefully orchestrated their appearances in the public spaces of their host city. The strict (yet contested) diplomatic precedence led to numerous incidents and fights between ambassadors and their personel in the streets of important political centres.³⁴ Their residence was another symbol of the rulers or state they represented. It was an important space to organise occasional festivities for military victories or dynastic births and marriages. In 1661, the Spanish ambassador in Rome celebrated the birth of the child that would later become Charles II of Spain. A rare painting illustrates how diplomats used their residence and the public space of their host city to convey messages. Brussels-born painter Willem Reuter depicted the festivities on the Piazza della Trinità (now known as the Piazza di Spagna) in Rome (see Figure 1). The facade of the Palazzo di Spagna, residence of the Spanish ambassador to the Papal States, is adorned with draperies, the Spanish and Portuguese coats of arms, and stands for the spectators. In front of the palace, a miniature fortification shot fireworks next to a wine fountain.³⁵

Figure 1. Celebrations on the Piazza di Spagna in Rome on the occasion of the birth of Infante Carlos in 1661. Painting by Willem Reuter, between 1661 and 1681, oil on canvas (Vienna, Gemäldegalerie der Akademie der bildenden Künste, Inv.no GG-585)

Organising these festivities was often an expensive undertaking: in 1629, after the Dutch representative in Venice had explained to the States General that it was costumary for celebrations in the city to last three days and include music, the latter decided to cancel the events.³⁶ In early eighteenth-century Venice, the Austrian and French ambassadors engaged in a ceremonial competition. Apart from the customary ceremonial entry in the city, the Austrian ambassador organised the annual celebration of the emperor and empress’s birthdays as well as their name days, together with occasional festivities for military victories or births in the imperial family. French celebrations were less frequent, but Louis XV’s marriage and the birth of a dauphin also gave occastion to public rejoicing. Te Deums, symphonies and serenatas were important ingredients of these celebrations, which conveyed carefully constructed images of the Habsburg and Bourbon rulers.³⁷

One particularly important and well-researched component of early modern diplomacy and court culture is the act of gift-giving.³⁸ Together with letters from foreign rulers, gifts were central to diplomatic ceremony, since they embodied messages and established commitments. The giver did not expect financial reciprocation, but there was definitely some sort of return. Procuring suitable gifts was a tricky matter, and the sheer variety of gifts was astonishing. They were usually luxury objects such as paintings, jewellery, clocks or fashion, made by the finest artists in precious metals, expensive wood or fine cloth.³⁹ In various studies, gifts are seen as a way to promote a ruler’s image, and in the particular case of Louis XIV, a vehicle to establish France’s cultural superiority.⁴⁰ Mirella Marini and Veronika Hyden-Hanscho’s essays show that gifts played a significant role in cultural diplomacy initiatives. Hyden-Hanscho studies the importance of gifts by diplomats for the dissemination of French fashion in the Habsburg Monarchy. It was a deliberate attempt to promote French textiles at court in Vienna. Moreover, the decision to use fashion as a tool in diplomacy when Louis XIV and Leopold I were archenemies reveals how culture and gifts were crucial when other means of communication failed.

Rulers often used the availability of famous or specialist manufactures from their countries to their advantage. The Byzantine emperors made extensive use of their monopoly on silk, and from the fourteenth century onwards, the dukes of Burgundy used Flemish tapestry in their gift-giving strategies. Wolfgang Brassat argues that this strategy of promoting luxury industries is a genuine Kunstpolitik.⁴¹ During the course of the eighteenth-century, the elector of Saxony used Meissen porcelain in his diplomatic activities: incoming envoys and other highly ranked travellers usually visited the royal porcelain collections and the Meissen manufactory. The domestic production of luxury objects raised the prestige of both the elector and the electorate.⁴² Hyden-Hanscho’s contribution about French fashion suggests that this strategy also had commercial goals, and that its impact could be long-lasting.

Studying ambassadors’ gift-giving strategies reveals patterns that allow us to understand how gifts had a significant impact on society in general. Scholars of contemporary public and cultural diplomacy suggest that it is not necessary to reach broad audiences directly in order to have the necessary impact. In some cases, it suffices to establish connections with specific prominent individuals that are influential within the target community.⁴³ Both Hyden-Hanscho and Marini’s articles illustrate that this strategy was indeed used in the seventeenth century. The attempts by French envoys in Vienna to influence the fashion choices of Empress Margarita Teresa, who would normally wear Spanish garments, was meant to make French fashion more acceptable at the hostile Viennese court. It was also no coincidence that extraordinary ambassador Arenberg, grand falconer at the court in Brussels, gave falcons as a gift to the English secretary of state Robert Cecil. Hunting dogs, falcons and horses were common diplomatic gifts exchanged between sovereigns.⁴⁴ Through his own strategic gift-giving, Arenberg cultivated a personal relationships with one of the leading politicans at the court in London. Cecil was able to influence the other members of the Privy Council and the new king James VI/I to favour a peace deal with the Habsburgs. Convincing him of the trustworthiness of the archdukes’ intentions was of the utmost importance.

Gifts were not always material objects. Michael Auwers has argued that Peter Paul Rubens was sent by Philip IV to the art-loving Charles I as a gift.⁴⁵ By sending Rubens on a diplomatic mission to London, the Spanish king gave his English cousin access to the artistic talent of the most renowned artist of the time at the pinnacle of his career. Philip IV was offering Charles a means of art patronage which the English king could put to good use. Together with Charles’s visit to the Spanish royal palaces with their well-thought-out displays of art in 1623, Rubens’s mission can be seen as soft power strategically employed to smooth the path towards Anglo-Spanish peace. Marini draws inspiration from Auwers’s argument and suggests that Arenberg, together with the carefully selected noblemen that accompanied him, should be seen as a gift of friendship to the Stuart monarch. The diplomat and his entourage acted as bridges between two dynasties who claimed to be friends already. The background of the noblemen accompanying Arenberg reflected the Burgundian heritage Albert and Isabella sought to instrumentalise, as well as the centuries-old Anglo-Netherlandish relations they wished to revive.

Compared to the broader field of political history, diplomatic history is slowly catching up in paying more attention to the role of women.⁴⁶ Women at court were often chosen as important recipients of gifts. Hyden-Hanscho points at the Roman empresses and their ladies-in-waiting as targets of the dissemination of fashion by the French, but also at their agency on whether or not to purchase and wear French fashion. There are indications that women accompanying their husbands could play significant roles in addressing foreign audiences. They very likely actively participated in cultural diplomacy, although this is a topic that is still in need of further research.⁴⁷ The famous Princess des Ursins, née Marie-Anne de La Trémoille (1642–1722), is an illustration of the fact that women could act as fully-fledged cultural diplomats. For several decades, the Princess was one of the most influential representatives of France in Rome, due to her social background, excellent contacts at court in Versailles, and her marriage to Flavio Orsini, the leader of the Francophile faction in Rome. Just like the French diplomats in Vienna, she actively cultivated a taste for French fashion: she bought French gifts for her acquiantances, had her meals cooked by a French chef, had her residence redecorated by French artists, and established a French salon. Although her musical taste was Italian, the theatrical events she organised reflected French drama. But she was still more than a cultural go-between; her actions were highly political. In 1699, she even adorned the façade of her palazzo at Piazza Navona with the coat of arms of the French king, similar to the painting of Spanish embassy by Willem Reuter (see Figure 1). The Princess des Ursins was a cultural diplomat in all but name, and she understood her role exactly in this way.⁴⁸

What these examples of early modern cultural diplomacy have in common, is that the target audience is clearly defined: specific personalities at court, the inhabitants of a particular city. The success of these strategies relies on what Harriet Rudolph, in her book on entry processions in the Holy Roman Empire, has called Präsenzöffentlichkeit: the audience is constituted by those who are physically present.⁴⁹ The development of regular postal services between major European cities and the wider availability of paper combined with the advent of printing started to change communication significantly in the sixteenth century, offering more ways to reach those audiences that were not directly present.⁵⁰

Historicising public diplomacy

Diplomats described court life and the actions of representatives of other states, and also included the latest political and military news in their weekly despatches to their rulers and/or governments. In the sixteenth century, professional scribes and other information professionals started to excerpt information from ambassadorial correspondence into handwritten newsletters, often including reports on the movements and actions of rulers and their representatives. The first printed newspapers appearing in the Habsburg Netherlands, Dutch Republic, German cities and France in the first decades of the seventeenth century also paid a lot of attention to court ceremonies and arrivals of ambassadors in foreign cities. A growing (reading) audience was able to follow the actions of individual ambassadors, and information on specific diplomatic missions appeared in printed news pamphlets as well. The momentous peace negotations between Habsburg Spain and Stuart England between 1603 and 1604 resulted in a series of printed news accounts describing the journey, mission and reception of Habsburg and Stuart ambassadors in London and Madrid.⁵¹ A rather elaborate account of Juan Fernández de Velasco’s embassy and the final negotiations to conclude the peace in London in 1604 was first printed in Spanish in Antwerp by Jan I Moretus.⁵² It was subsequently reprinted in Valencia and Madrid, as well as in Habsburg Milan.⁵³ Later that year, it was also translated into German and printed in Augsburg.⁵⁴ By republishing and translating these accounts, news about diplomats’ entries, audiences, ceremonies and peace negotiations could reach multiple audiences across Europe.

With a variety of new available media – such as handwritten newsletters, printed news pamphlets, prints and newspapers – rulers and their representatives had the opportunity to publicise their actions to a wider audience. However, they quickly realised that a wider access to what was presumed to be privileged information was a double-edged sword.⁵⁵ Domestic opponents as well as international enemies could also use these media to scrutinise their actions or damage their reputation. Political thinkers such as Giovanni Botero and Justus Lipsius were convinced that the reputation of a ruler was absolutely paramount to maintain a state. Their political ideas had trickeled through, and reputation meant a great deal to seventeenth-century rulers, as can be seen in advice given by James VI/I’s secretary of state to William Trumbull, the English representative in Brussels. He was told not to write of “disgraceful or contemptible speeches” to the king as “the knowledge of such reports are grievous unto his spirit, which is sensible and apprehensive of his honour”.⁵⁶ As a result, diplomats were incredibly active in policing disrespectful or dissenting texts. One of the most well-known cases is the publication in 1615 of Corona Regia, a satirical panegyric of James VI/I. In Brussels, Trumbull went to great lengths to discover the identity of the author and the printer of this Latin libel.⁵⁷

Up until now, scholarship has focused primarly on cases of diplomats trying to suppress texts. How governments and its representatives abroad used printing to promote and achieve their aims has received far less attention. Recently, Jason Peacey emphasised the importance of this specific topic in his examination of the close ties between English ambassadors and newspaper publishers in the Dutch Republic. He suggested that there is a need for more detailed studies on the role of ambassadors in manipulating printed news and newspapers.⁵⁸ Here we are firmly in the territory of what Cull has labelled advocacy, i.e. concrete actions to promote ideas and interests. How, when and why did early modern diplomats use different media and genres to influence foreign audiences to advance foreign policies and actions?

Many questions remain unanswered: were these actions coordinated by the rulers and/or their secretaries of state, or did diplomats by and large take the initiative themselves? Under which circumstances was it possible and convenient for diplomats to meddle in the domestic politics of the country of their residence? Were some diplomats more attuned to the opportunity to interact with foreign audiences to achieve their goals? Under the influence of New Diplomatic History, scholars have focused on the different range of individuals taking on diplomatic tasks.⁵⁹ As Jan Hennings and Edward Holberton have shown, secretaries and other ambassadorial personel could help shape the representation of embassies for foreign audiences.⁶⁰ Following this line of enquiry, it might be fruitful to investigate whether the official rank of a diplomat mattered when setting up publicitiy or smear campaigns. Diplomats with a lower rank, such as envoys, might have had more room in their host country to undertake actions than fully accredited ambassadors had.

When we take a look at the secondary literature, it quickly becomes clear that English rulers actively exploited the potential of print to shape international relations. Tracey A. Sowerby has convincingly shown this with respect to the early days of the development of English resident diplomacy during the reign of Henry VIII. His representatives received copies of English polemic and official print, as well as clear instructions on how to explain Henry’s policies and actions at foreign courts.⁶¹ Henry VIII consistently used print to promote his rule on the European continent. In these Henrician campaigns, the English government was keen to recruit foreign authors, such as the famous Italian humanist Pietro Aretino.⁶² Recent work on James VI/I’s diplomacy shows remarkable similiarities: in his polemical campaigns against the papacy, James relied on his diplomats and special envoys to deliver his own political and religious tracts to other European rulers and recruited renowned scholars such as Philippe DuPlessis-Mornay and Isaac Casaubon to write libels against the papacy.⁶³

Less institutionalized than the English cases are the attempts to convince foreign audiences by the rebels in the Low Countries between 1560s and 1570s. With letters, printed pamphlets and engravings they tried to persuade various audiences, primarily in the German lands and France, to support their revolt against the Habsburg rule. Their multimedia campaigns, closely tied to the Nassau family, relied on migrant communities and confessional networks. As the Dutch Republic emerged as a new state on the international scene by the early seventeenth century, it became absolutely necessary to influence foreign audiences. Helmers has argued that the Dutch Republic was among the first states to engage actively in public diplomacy. Pieter Cornelisz Brederode, appointed in 1602 as the first official Dutch representative in the Holy Roman Empire, was extremely energetic at various German courts in vilifying the Spanish enemy – the so-called “Black Legend”, which served to forge anti-Habsburg alliances. Together with John VI of Nassau, he thought of establishing a Kollegium, a body to coordinate the transnational activities to promote and protect Calvinism throughout Europe.⁶⁴

Up until now, most cases focus on moments of political and religious crisis when monarchs needed diplomats to defend their policies, as in Henry VIII’s break with Rome, or during cases of rebellion, such as the Revolt in the Netherlands, when convincing foreign audiences was a crucial element in a quest for potential allies and support.⁶⁵ In his contribution to this special issue, Helmer Helmers explores how the Dutch Republic with its highly decentralised state structure became a target for other European powers to intervene in its internal political and religious struggles in the early seventeenth century. Focusing on Ralph Winwood and Dudley Carleton, two of James VI/I’s diplomats stationed in The Hague during the truce conflict, he argues that both men used orations in front of the States General to intervene in the fierce domestic theological debate on predestination. Orations were a customary part of official communication between states, but these English ambassadors used their speeches as tools of public persuasion for a broader audience, contributing to a climate of heightened suspicion surrounding Oldenbarnevelt. It was difficult for the States General to suppress the publication of these speeches since this might have caused a diplomatic incident with James.

However, moments of crisis do not always produce the ideal circumstances for ambassadors to intervene in local politics. Such a strategy could backfire. Once information or opinions were out in the open, they could be refuted or used by other parties. The initial sender quickly lost control over what happened with his own words. Thomas Donald Jacobs’s analysis of Alonso de Cárdenas in London during the English civil wars exemplifies how other political players intercepted his letters and printed excerpts without his consent. Cárdenas was fully aware of the possibilities of the printed press, but he did not use it as openly as Carleton did in the Dutch Republic. Yet, this case still highlights the aspect of selfrepresentation we need to consider in more detail, as diplomats could hire or establish patron-client relationships with talented authors to manage their own public image and reputation. Hence, it might have been his position as a Catholic reprensentative in a Protestant state that restricted his manoevering space, as Cárdenas actively used print to promote his own reputation at the Habsburg court in Brussels with a Spanish account of the festivities he had organised in London.

Enrique Corredera Nilsson’s contribution illustrates how another Spanish and Catholic diplomat tried to circumvent his limited possibilities to act at a Lutheran court. The promulgation of a new and stricter pro-Lutheran edict in Denmark in 1655, which forbade the practice of other religions in the realm, worried the Spanish representative, Bernardino de Rebolledo. To try and safeguard the rights of Catholics in Denmark, he decided it was necessary to appeal, in secret, to an entirely different religious denomination in a different state. Together with the Spanish diplomat in The Hague, Rebolledo used the printed newspapers in the Dutch Republic to publish news of this edict. Rebolledo hoped that its anti-Calvinist stance would worry the Dutch Calvinist ministers and put it on the agenda of the new diplomatic mission to the Danish king on behalf of the States General.

In order to find traces of these actions, it is crucial to examine diplomatic correspondence between diplomats. Ambassadors and envoys stationed at different courts exchanged ample information with one another, as well as with (foreign) secretaries in their home countries and their rulers. Jacobs and Corredera Nilsson’s cases suggest that they discussed their actions and initiatives more openly with some of their colleagues than with their superiors. Closely reading these letters seems to be a fruitful route for further research. It could enable researchers to uncover and explore more fully the practices of public diplomacy during the early modern period.

Conclusion

The objective of the multimedia campaigns of early modern diplomatic activities appears to be very similar to modern diplomatic practices: shape foreign policies by influencing a wider audience abroad. The impact of these campaigns, both in past and in present, is difficult to measure. While we are often left in the dark whether early modern public and cultural diplomacy actually achieved its intended result, the attention rulers and their representatives devoted to ceremony and gift-giving as well as promoting the publication of news about their actions does indicate that they at least thought it was crucial to influence both domestic and foreign audiences. Scholarly attention to these strategies offers crucial insight into the ways diplomats thought they would be able to achieve their goal, and about their strategies and the media they believed would be appropriate means to influence the political process.

The twentieth-century concepts are tools to recognise and analyse early modern diplomatic practices that have hitherto remained out of the picture. We cannot equate these seventeenth-century strategies and actions with twentieth- and twenty-first-century public and cultural diplomacy. With the exception of the plan to establish a Dutch Kollegium for the coordination of public opinion formation – a plan which, moreover, remained dead letter – public and cultural diplomacy in the early modern period was by and large the responsibility of individual diplomats. These representatives lacked specific instructions on how to undertake such actions and on whether at all they were supposed to set up a publicity campaign to influence the wider public in the host country or abroad. Veronika Hyden-Hanscho shows that Louis XIV’s diplomats were active in promoting French fashion in Vienna, but the link with the king himself directing these intiatives is unclear. Enrique Corredera Nilsson demonstrates that the Spanish envoy Rebolledo informed his colleague de Gamarra in The Hague about his use of the press, but he raised different issues in his letters with superiors in Madrid, and certainly with the king. This emphasises the improvisional and flexible nature of premodern foreign relations.

Surveying the current state of the field of New Diplomatic History, John Watkins has detected an “eclipse of the state” and suggested it is time to pay more attention to politics and interstate relations.⁶⁶ Mirella Marini highlights the importance of in-depth attention to the political contexts and cultures in which these actors operated to show how gifts were used to create goodwill. Tracing practices of both cultural and public diplomacy allows us to reintroduce the ruler, the state and its policies without losing sight of the agency of ambassadors and non-state actors involved in premodern diplomacy. There is a whole cast of supporting characters, from secretaries to household members and ghostwriters, that might be involved in influencing public debates on behalf of representatives, and therefore requires our attention.⁶⁷

Yet, as early modern scholars, there is also a new element we should introduce in the conversation. Most scholars of international relations studying public diplomacy have ignored religion as a crucial factor. Here, the premodern world offers crucial insight into how ambassadors tackled the often thorny issues of religious conversions and protecting co-religionists without disturbing newly established political alliances. Several of our case studies highlight the crucial role played by religion in the way ambassadors communicated their message to a foreign audience.

In the seventeenth century, diplomats from England and the Dutch Republic were not the only ones to employ strategies to address foreign audiences. Diplomats from the Spanish Habsburg Monarchy also understood the potential of the printing press to influence public opinions in different countries.⁶⁸ However, we need to investigate more states and their representatives in order to see whether strategies to influence foreign audiences were impacted by different forms of rulership and governance. To achieve a more complete picture of diplomatic practices, we need to (re-)turn to the huge amounts of diplomatic correspondence conserved in archives and libraries worldwide, as well as mine newspapers and other printed materials more thoroughly. Optical Character Recognition (OCR), and especially Handwriting Text Recognition (HTR), might be useful tools to tackle this task of gargantuan proportions. However, an awareness of the wide array of activities early modern diplomatic agents were engaged in, is the first necessary step. We are only at the beginning of unearthing the myriad of ways in which early modern diplomats addressed audiences abroad.

Acknowledgments

When the corona pandemic started to paralyse the planet, our five authors had just submitted a first version of their articles. This special issue has become our “corona project”. Working together on the writing of the introduction and editing the contributions gave us both a sense of purpose as our lives were turned upside down. Despite all professional and private challenges, all five contributors managed, in often difficult circumstances, to submit their final versions. We want to thank The Arenberg Foundation for their generous support, which allowed the contributions to be proofread by a professional. Our thanks go to Anton Froeyman for his careful proofreading. Helmer Helmers and Kerrewin van Blanken shared their thoughts on the conceptual framework of this special issue. Finally, we owe many thanks to the editor-in-chief of The Seventeenth Century, Richard Maber, for all his advice and support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Please note that the order of authors and editors is alphabetical and in no way indicates differences in the level of contribution.

2. Stollberg-Rilinger, “Symbolische Kommunikation,” 489–527.

3. Tipton, “Diplomatie und Zeremoniell”; Strohmeyer, “The Theatrical Performance,” 486–94.

4. Müller, Das kaiserliche Gesandtschaftswesen, 128 and 306–7.

5. “Il [Harrach] eut l’avantage de faire son entrée plusieurs jours après le maréchal d’Harcourt, et, quoiqu’il eût vu que celui-ci l’avoit faite avec une magnificence extraordinaire, et un égal applaudissement du peuple qui ne se repaît que de l’extérieur, surtout en pareille occasion, il fit la sienne si mince, si mesquine et si misérable, que, dans la conjoncture de la mort du roi, qui suivit bientôt, cela produisit pour les Allemands un effet détestable, et pour la France un effet merveilleux. On ne sauroit dire combien cette bagatelle fut utile à la maison de Bourbon.” Quoted in: de Mérode-Westerloo, ed., Mémoires, vol. 2, 189–90. All translations are our own, unless stated otherwise. Jean Philippe Eugène de Merode, Marquis of Westerlo (born 1674), penned his memoirs between 1704 and his death in 1732. They cover his life until 1723.

6. The literature is vast, for recent overviews see Sowerby and Hennings, Practices of Diplomacy in Early Modern World; Sowerby and Craigwoord, Cultures of Diplomac and Literary Writing

7. Rudolph, “Entangled Objects,” 9–10.

8. Helmers, “Public Diplomacy,” 401–20. See also the VIDI Project funded by NWO “Inventing Public Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe. How Printed Media Shaped Dutch International Relations, 1568–1713,” at the Humanities Cluster of the Royal Netherlands Society of Arts and Sciences: https://www.nwo.nl/onderzoek-en-resultaten/onderzoeksprojecten/i/51/33651.html (accessed 29 June 2020).

9. Rossiter, “Lingua Eius Loquetur”; Hennings and Holberton, “Andrew Marvell in Russia.” We would like to thank Hennings and Holberton for allowing us to read their article before publication.

10. Watkins, “Premodern non-state agency,” 29.

11. For an overview see introduction to the special issue in Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies in September 2020 by Wong, “Ideologies of Diplomacy,” 479–83.

12. See, for example: Welch, A Theater of Diplomacy, 10 and 108.

13. Nye, Soft Power, ix–xiii (quotation x).

14. Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy,” 4–5.

15. Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy.” Several analists prefer the new concept of “smart power,” in which forms of hard and soft power are combined: Cull, Public Diplomacy, 15.

16. Cull, Public Diplomacy, 19–20; Gienow-Hecht and Donfried, “The Model of Cultural Diplomacy.” For a thorough analysis of definitions, see Gilboa, “Searching for a Theory,” 57–8.

17. See Cull, “Public Diplomacy before Gullion.”

18. Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy,” 16–9. See also Cull, Public Diplomacy, 12 and 22–3.

19. Cull, Public Diplomacy. Since Cull’s 2009 report was published, social media have become increasingly influential in (international) politics. More recent publications address the challenges of conducting public diplomacy in the twenty-first century. Several scholars talk about a “new public diplomacy” and “public diplomacy 2.0”, characterised by new, real-time and global mechanisms to communicate, see Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy,” 11–6; Cull, Public Diplomacy; Waller, ed., The Public Diplomacy Reader, 23–39 (chapter “Definitions: What is Public Diplomacy, and What is it for?”); Cross and Melissen, eds., European Public Diplomacy; Gilboa, “Searching for a Theory,” 59.

20. Cull, Public Diplomacy, 19–20. For another example of cultural diplomacy being considered subordinate to public diplomacy: Waller, ed., The Public Diplomacy Reader, 196–7 (quote by John Lenczowski from 2007).

21. For recent literature see Cross and Melissen, European Public Diplomacy.

22. “Koningspaar voert charmeoffensief in New York.” De Standaard, 24 April 2018 (www.standaard.be, accessed 11 May 2020); “Reynders zet alles op alles voor zitje in VN-veiligheidsraad.” De Morgen, 7 June 2018 (www.demorgen.be, accessed 11 May 2020). On the overlap between public diplomacy and nation branding, see Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy,” 19–21.

23. Gienow-Hecht, “Nation Branding”; Cull, Public Diplomacy, 13–14 and 28–31.

24. For useful overviews of studies on the topic see Krenn, The History of United States Cultural Diplomacy.

25. Arndt, The First Resort of Kings, ix–xxi; Waller, ed., The Public Diplomacy Reader, 163–98 (chapter “Cultural Diplomacy”); Glade, “Issues,” 240–59; Gienow-Hecht and Donfried, “The Model of Cultural Diplomacy,” 13–29.

26. Arndt, The First Resort of Kings, xi and 3.

27. Skinner, “The state.”

28. Bély, La société des princes. In the seventeenth century, with the exception of the Republic of United Provinces, all major European powers were monarchies.

29. Sowerby, “Early Modern Diplomatic History,” 441–56.

30. For more information on the cultural history of politics and, more specifically, ritual-symbolic actions and symbolic communication, see Stollberg-Rilinger, “State and Political History,” 43–58, especially 49–53; Stollberg-Rilinger, “Le rituel,” 7–29; Stollberg-Rilinger, “Zeremoniell, Ritual, Symbol,” 389–405; Stollberg-Rilinger, “Zeremoniell als politisches Verfahren,” 91–132; Lecuppre-Desjardin, La ville des cérémonies. For “symbolic communication” in the context of early modern diplomacy, see the special issue Diplomacy and Cultural Translation in the Early Modern World (Journal of Early Modern History, 2016), edited by Toby Osborne and Joan-Pau Rubiés.

31. Some examples: Welch, A Theater of Diplomacy; Nathalie Rivère de Carles, ed., Early Modern Diplomacy; Polleroß, Die Kunst der Diplomatie.

32. Welch, A Theater of Diplomacy.

33. Welch, A Theater of Diplomacy, passim (especially chapter 5). Nevertheless, in the second chapter of her book Welch also questions the importance of the visual messages of court entertainments for some attending diplomats. The act of spectating or participating (or not participating) and their exact role in the spectacle was in some instances more important than the messages conveyed. Welch thus concludes that theatrical diplomatic performances were spaces for negotiation as much as instruments of power.

34. Hunt, “The ceremonial possession.”

35. Trnek, Die holländischen Gemälde, 320–3.

36. Heringa, Eer en hoogheid, 95.

37. Giovani, “Serenatas.”

38. Biedermann, Gerritsen and Riello, “Global Gifts”; Dziewulski, ed., The Ambassadors of Dialogue. A new and related field focuses on the material objects in diplomatic encounters: Um and Clark, “The Art of Embassy”; Rudolph, “Entangled Objects”; Anderson, “Material Mediators,” 67–73.

39. For more literature on paintings as diplomatic gifts and the importance of the messages they carried: Baker-Bates, “Beyond Rome”; Colantuono, “High Quality Copies.”

40. Richefort, “Présents diplomatiques.”

41. Brassat, Tapisserien und Politik, 83–6.

42. Cassidy-Geiger, “Porcelain and Prestige,” here especially 11–2; Braun, “Meissen Porcelain,” 301–6.

43. Cull, Public Diplomacy, 12.

44. Heal, “Presenting noble beasts,” 187–203.

45. Auwers, “The Gift of Rubens,” 421–41.

46. Bastian, Windler, Dade, and von Thiessen, eds., Das Geschlecht der Diplomatie; Sluga, and James, eds., Women, Diplomacy and International Politics.

47. Allen, “The Rise of the Ambassadress,” 617–38

48. Goulet, “The Princesse des Ursins.”

49. The opposite is Medienöffentlichkeit: See Rudolph, Das Reich als Ereignis, passim.

50. See Lazzarini, Communication and Conflict; Behringer, Im Zeichen des Merkur; Boutier and Landi, La politique par correspondence; Pettegree, The Invention of News; Raymond and Moxham, News Networks.

51. Relacion muy verdadera del recebimiento y fiestas (USTC 5012465); La segunda parte de la embaxada de Don Iuan de Tassis (USTC 5013780); Waerachtich verhael van de reyse (USTC 1009297).

52. Relacion de la Jornada (USTC 5025866).

53. Edition in Valencia (USTC 5029563) and Madrid edition (USTC 5111368).

54. Warer Dißcurs (USTC 2065846).

55. Lamal et al., Print and Power.

56. Quotes taken from Uddin, “William Trumbull,” 194.

57. For more on this case see Uddin, “William Trumbull,” 185–239, and Winter, “Corona Regia.”

58. Peacey, “My Friend the Gazetier” and Peacey, “Managing Dutch advices.”

59. Tremml-Werner and Goetze, “A Multitude of Actors,” 407–22 as well as Ebben and Sicking, Beyond ambassadors.

60. Hennings and Holberton, “Andrew Marvell in Russia.” Hennings and Holberton analyse different handwritten and published accounts of the 1663–1664 embassy of Charles Howard, first Earl of Carlisle, to Russia. They demonstrate how the authors of these accounts – secretaries accompanying Carlisle – deliberately shaped their own versions of the embassy according to evolving international alliances and for different publics.

61. Sowerby, “All our books,” 1271–99.

62. Rossiter, “Lingua Eius Loquetur,” 519–37.

63. Smuts, “Theological Polemics and James I’s Diplomacy,” 515–39.

64. Helmers, “Public Diplomacy.”

65. Another rare example of scholarship that studies this phenomenon: Pimenta Oliveira de Carvalho, Diplomatie, information et publication. For a successful application of the concept of public diplomacy to the early modern period see Waller, “The American Way.” He analyzes a crisis situation comparable to the young Dutch Republic: the American rebels trying to find allies in their struggle against England. They resorted to targeting the British public opinion because they could not directly bring changes to Parliament.

66. Watkins, “Premodern Non-State Agency,” 22–3.

67. The contribution of Hyden-Hanscho hints at the servants of the diplomats playing a role in the cultural diplomacy strategies concerning French fashion.

68. Helmers suggestion that diplomats sought to influence the news more directly in republics because of the absence of centralized, royal control over the press, is plausible, but more research on monarchies is needed to confirm or deny this hypothesis: Helmers, “Public Diplomacy,” 412.