DIPLOMACY IN POLAND-LITHUANIA 297
that a diplomat's word is his bond, and that treaties are made to be respected.
He puts loyalty, handsomeness, honesty, and education, above noble birth as
qualities expected in an ambassador, quoting Virgil, Tacitus, Aristotle, and a
host of contemporary examples in support of his view. Dantyszek is praised
repeatedly, as is Martin Kromer, the historian. Andreas Dudith, one-time impe-
rial agent in Poland, is censured for 'levity', and Jean Monluc, Ambassador of
Charles IX of France, for his 'vanity'. The Muscovites, for their 'ridiculous arro-
gance' and 'perfidy' are not to be counted among civilized negotiators. In sum-
marizing the characteristics required of ambassadors destined for particular
countries, he makes the following observations:
To Turkey, it is necessary to send steadfast and generous envoys (fortes et liberates),
men who are also honest. There is no point in sending cowards or misers, since these
might weaken under the browbeatings to which the Turks habitually subject them. And
they must know how to dispense largesse. The position in Moscow is suited to wary men
[cantos in Moscoviam), for there 'The Greek faith' is practised, and nothing can be
obtained without lengthy disputes. For Rome, pious men must be appointed, men noted
for their devotion to religion (pii et religionis observantia noti), but laymen in preference
to clerics, since the latter tend to bow to the authority of the Holy Father. To Spain, indi-
viduals of a calm temperament should be sent, men devoid of adventure, since in that
country one has to lead an ascetic sort of life whether one wants to or not. In Italy, in con-
trast, it is right that the state be represented by civilized and courteous men (humanes et
officiosi) since questions of manners and etiquette cause continual problems there.
France is a place for versatile men of speedy intellect (ingenuo celeri aut potius versatili),
who can adapt themselves quickly and grasp the point of an argument. In England,
handsome, high-born envoys are best suited (formosi et proceres), for the English
have great respect for that sort of person, telling them apparently that it is a pity they are
not Englishmen themselves. In Germany, diplomats need to keep to their promises
(promessorum tenaces), the Germans being famed from time immemorial for their con-
stancy and perseverance. Everywhere, diplomats must be temperate and abstinent (con-
tinentes et abstinentes.. .)^9
These remarks, made nearly four hundred years ago, are not entirely obsolete.
All in all, Warszewicki's political attitudes are sensible and high-minded, but
somewhat naive. They are markedly different both from the Jesuitical improve-
ments on Machiavelli which were appearing elsewhere in Catholic Europe, and
from the oriental mysticism which prevailed at points east. Judging from the fre-
quent reprints, they were widely respected beyond the Republic, providing a
refreshing change from the cynicism and fanaticism of the age.
The extent to which individual Polish diplomats conformed to Warszewicki's
standards is impossible to say; but one at least provides an object lesson in how
an ambassador should never behave. Pawel Dzialynski, Castellan of Dobrzyn
and a secretary to Zygmunt III, who left Poland on a mission to England in May
1597, must surely have been familiar with Warszewicki's recently published
handbook. But first at The Hague and then at Greenwich, he provoked a couple
of incidents which reverberated to his discredit throughout the courts of
Europe. At that juncture, England and Holland were both at war with Spain,