Chapter V: Act 1836: , which created two new dioceses (Ripon and Manchester), (4)

But, in addition to being a liar _ex officio_, the ambassador was also "an honourable spy." "The principal functions of an envoy," says Francois de Callieres, himself an ex-ambassador of Louis XIV., "are two; the first is to look after the affairs of his own prince; the second is to discover the affairs of the other." A clever minister, he maintains, will know how to keep himself informed of all that goes on in the mind of the sovereign, in the councils of ministers or in the country; and for this end "good cheer and the warming effect of wine" are excellent allies.[14] This being so, it is hardly to be wondered at that foreign ambassadors were commonly regarded as perhaps necessary, but certainly very unwelcome, guests. The views of Philippe de Commines have already been quoted above, and they were shared by a long series of theoretical writers as well as by men of affairs. Gentilis is all but alone in his protest against the view that all ambassadors were _exploratores magis quam oratores_, and to be treated as such. So early as 1481 the government of Venice had decreed the penalty of banishment and a heavy fine for any one who should talk of affairs of state with a foreign envoy, and though the more civilized princes did not follow the example of the sultan, who by way of precaution locked the ambassador of Ferdinand II., Jerome Laski, into "a dark and stinking place without windows," they took the most minute precautions to prevent the ambassadors of friendly powers from penetrating into their secrets. Charles V. thought it safest to keep them as far away as possible from his court. So did Francis I.; and, when affairs were critical, he made his frequent changes of residence and his hunting expeditions the excuse for escaping from their presence. Henry VII. forbade his subjects to hold any intercourse with them, and, later on, set spies upon them and examined their correspondence--a practice by no means confined to England. If the system of permanent embassies survived, it is clear that this was mainly due to the belief of the sovereigns that they gained more by maintaining "honourable spies" at foreign courts than they lost by the presence of those of foreign courts at their own. It was purely a question of the balance of advantage. Neither among statesmen nor among theorists was there any premonition of the great part to be played by the permanent diplomatic body in the development and maintenance of the concert of Europe. To Paschalius the permanent embassies were "a miserable outgrowth of a miserable age."[15] Grotius himself condemned them as not only harmful, but useless, the proof of the latter being that they were unknown to antiquity.[16]

_Development of the Diplomatic Hierarchy._--The history of the diplomatic body[17] is, like that of other bodies, that of the progressive differentiation of functions. The middle ages knew no classification of diplomatic agents; the person sent on mission is described indifferently as _legatus_, _orator_, _nuntius_, _ablegatus_, _commissarius_, _procurator_, _mandatarius_, _agens_ or _ambaxator_ (_ambassator_, &c.). In Gundissalvus, _De legato_ (1485), the oldest printed work on the subject, the word _ambasiator_, first found in a Venetian decree of 1268, is applied to any diplomat. Florence was the first to make distinction; the _orator_ was appointed by the council of the republic; the _mandatorio_, with inferior powers, by the Council of Ten. In 1500 Machiavelli, who held only the latter rank, wrote from France urging the Signoria to send _ambasiadori_. This was, however, rather a question of powers than of dignity. But the causes which ultimately led to the elaborate differentiation of diplomatic ranks were rather questions of dignity than of functions.[18] The breakdown of feudalism, with the consequent rise of a series of sovereign states or of states claiming to be sovereign, of very various size and importance, led to a certain confusion in the ceremonial relation between them, which had been unknown to the comparatively clearly defined system of the middle ages. The smaller states were eager to assert the dignity of their actual or practical independence; the greater powers were equally bent on "keeping them in their place." If the emperor, as has been stated above, was too exalted to send ambassadors, certain of the lesser states were soon esteemed too humble to be represented at the courts of the great powers save by agents of an inferior rank. By the second half of the 16th century, then, there are two classes of diplomatists, ambassadors and residents or agents, the latter being accounted ambassadors of the second class.[19] At first the difference of rank was determined by the status of the sovereign by whom or to whom the diplomatic agent was accredited; but early in the 16th century it became fairly common for powers of the first rank to send agents of the second class to represent them at courts of an equal status. The reasons were various, and not unamusing. First and foremost came the question of expense. The ambassador, as representing the person of his sovereign, was bound by the sentiment of the age to display an exaggerated magnificence. His journeys were like royal progresses, his state entries surrounded with every circumstance of pomp, and it was held to be his duty to advertise the munificence of his prince by boundless largesses. Had this munificence been as unlimited in fact as in theory, all might have been well, but, in that age of vaulting ambitions, depleted exchequers were the rule rather than the exception in Europe; the records are full of pitiful appeals from ambassadors for arrears of pay, and appointment to an embassy often meant ruin, even to a man of substance. To give but one example, Sir Richard Morison, Edward VI.'s ambassador in Germany, had to borrow money to pay his debts before he could leave Augsburg (_Cal. State Pap. Edw. VI._, No. 467), and later on he writes from Hamburg (April 9, 1552) that he could buy nothing, because everyone believed that he had packed up in readiness to flit secretly, for "How must they buy things, where men know their stuff is ready trussed up, and they fleeting every day?" (ib. No. 544). But the dignity of ambassador carried another drawback besides expense; his function of "honourable spy" was seriously hampered by the trammels of his position. He was unable to move freely in society, but lived a ceremonial existence in the midst of a crowd of retainers, through whom alone it was proper for him to communicate with the world outside. It followed that, though the office of ambassador was more dignified, that of agent was more generally useful.

Yet a third cause, possibly the most immediately potent, encouraged the growth of the lesser diplomatic ranks: the question of precedence among powers theoretically equal. Modern diplomacy has settled a difficulty which caused at one time much heart-burning and even bloodshed by a simple appeal to the alphabet. Great Britain feels no humiliation in signing after France, if the reason be that her name begins with G; had she not been Great, she would sign before. The vexed question of the precedence of ambassadors, too, has been settled by the rule, already referred to above, as to seniority of appointment. But while the question remained unsettled it was obviously best to evade it; and this was most easily done by sending an agent of inferior rank to a court where the precedence claimed for an ambassador would have been refused.

Thus set in motion, the process of differentiation continues until the system is stereotyped in the 19th century. It is unnecessary to trace this evolution here in any detail. It is mainly a question of names, and diplomatic titles are no exception to the general rule by which all titles tend to become cheapened and therefore, from time to time, need to be reinforced by fresh verbal devices. The method was the familiar one of applying terms that had once implied a particular quality in a fashion that implied actually nothing. The ambassador extraordinary had originally been one sent on an extraordinary mission; for the time and purpose of this mission his authority superseded that of the resident ambassador. But by the middle of the 17th century the custom had grown up of calling all ambassadors "extraordinary," in order to place them on an equality with the others. The same process was extended to diplomatists of the second rank; and envoys (_envoye_ for _ablegatus_) were always "extraordinary," and as such claimed and received precedence over mere "residents," who in their day had asserted the same claim against the agents--all three terms having at one time been synonymous. Similarly a "minister plenipotentiary" had originally meant an agent armed with full powers (_plein-pouvoir_); but, by a like process, the combination came to mean as little as "envoy extraordinary"--though a plenipotentiary _tout simple_ is still an agent, of no ceremonially defined dignity, despatched with full powers to treat and conclude. Finally, the evolution of the title of a diplomatist of the second rank is crowned by the high-sounding combination, now almost exclusively used, of "envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary." The ultimate fate of the simple title "resident" was the same as that of "agent." Both had been freely sold by needy sovereigns to all and sundry who were prepared to pay for what gave them a certain social status. The "agent" fell thus into utter discredit, and those "residents" who were still actual diplomatic agents became "ministers resident" to distinguish them from the common herd.

The classification of diplomatic agents was for the first time definitively included in the general body of international law by the _Reglement_ of the 19th of March 1815 at Vienna[20]; and the whole question was finally settled at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (November 21, 1818) when, the proposal to establish precedence by the status of the accrediting powers having wisely been rejected, diplomatic agents were divided into four classes: (1) Ambassadors, legates, nuncios; (2) Envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, and other ministers accredited direct to the sovereign; (3) Ministers resident; (4) Charges d'affaires. With a few exceptions (e.g. Turkey), this settlement was accepted by all states, including the United States of America.

_Rights and Privileges of Diplomatic Agents._--These are partly founded upon immemorial custom, partly the result of negotiations embodied in international law. The most important, as it is the most ancient, is the right of personal _inviolability_ extended to the diplomatic agent and the members of his suite. This inviolability is maintained after a rupture between the two governments concerned, and even after the outbreak of war. The habit of the Ottoman government of imprisoning in the Seven Towers the ambassador of a power with which it quarrelled was but an exception which proved the rule. The second important right is that of exterritoriality (q.v.), a convenient fiction by which the house and equipages of the diplomatic agent are regarded as the territory of the power by whom he is accredited. This involves the further principle that the agent is in no way subject to the receiving government. He is exempt from taxation and from the payment at least of certain local rates. He also enjoys immunity (1) from civil jurisdiction, e.g. he cannot be sued, nor can his goods be seized, for debt; (2) from criminal jurisdiction, e.g. he cannot be arrested and tried for a criminal offence. For a crime of violence, however, or for plotting against the state, he can be placed under the necessary restraint and expelled the country.[21] These immunities extend to all the members of an envoy's suite. The difficulties that might be supposed to arise from such exemptions have not in practice been found very serious; for though, in the case of crimes committed by servants of agents of the first or second class the procedure is not clearly defined, each case would easily be made the subject of arrangement. In certain cases, e.g. embassies in Turkey, the exterritoriality of ambassadors implies a fairly extensive criminal jurisdiction; in other cases the dismissal of the servant would deprive him of his diplomatic immunity and bring him under the law of the land. The right of granting asylum claimed by diplomatic agents in virtue of that of exterritoriality, at one time much abused, is now strictly limited. A political or criminal offender may seek asylum in a foreign embassy; but if, after a request has been formally made for his surrender, the ambassador refuses to deliver him up, the authorities may take the measures necessary to effect his arrest, and even force an entrance into the embassy for the purpose. The "right of chapel" (_droit de chapelle_, or _droit de culte_), enjoyed by envoys in reference to their exterritoriality, i.e. the right of free exercise of religious worship within their house, formerly of great importance, has been rendered superfluous by the spread of religious toleration. (See L. Oppenheim, _Internat. Law_ (London, 1905), i. p. 441, &c.; A.W. Haffter, _Das europaische Volkerrecht_ (Berlin, 1888), p. 435, &c.)

_The Personnel of the "Corps diplomatique."_--The establishment of diplomacy as a regular branch of the civil service is of modern growth, and even now by no means universal. From old time states naturally chose as their agents those who would best serve their interests in the matter in hand. In the middle ages diplomacy was practically a monopoly of the clergy, who as a class alone possessed the necessary qualifications: and in later times, when learning had spread to the laity as well, there were still potent reasons why the clergy should continue to be employed as diplomatic agents. Of these reasons the most practical was that of expense; for the wealth of the church formed an inexhaustible reserve which was used without scruple for secular purposes. Francis I. of France, who by the Concordat with Rome had in his hands the patronage of all the sees and abbeys in France, used this partly to reward his clerical ministers, partly as a great secret service fund for bribing the ambassadors of other powers, partly for the payment of those high-placed spies at foreign courts maintained by the elaborately organized system known as the _Secret du Roi_.[22] None the less, in the 16th century, laymen as diplomats are already well in evidence. They are usually lawyers, rarely soldiers, occasionally even simple merchants. Not uncommonly they were foreigners, like the Italian Thomas Spinelly mentioned above, drawn from that cosmopolitan class of diplomats who were ready to serve any master. Though nobles were often employed as ambassadors by all the powers, Venice alone made nobility a condition of diplomatic service. They were professional in the sense that, for the most part, diplomacy was the main occupation of their lives; there was, however, no graded diplomatic service in which, as at present, it was possible to rise on a fixed system from the position of simple _attache_ to that of minister and ambassador. The "attache to the embassy" existed[23]; but he was not, as is now the case, a young diplomat learning his profession, but an experienced man of affairs, often a foreigner employed by the ambassador as adviser, secret service agent and general go-between, and he was without diplomatic status.[24] The 18th century saw the rise of the diplomatic service in the modern sense. The elaboration of court ceremonial, for which Versailles had set the fashion, made it desirable that diplomatic agents should be courtiers, and young men of rank about the court began to be attached to missions for the express purpose of teaching them the art of diplomacy. Thus arose that aristocratic diplomatic class, distinguished by the exquisite refinement of its manners, which survived from the 18th century into the 19th. Modern democracy has tended to break with this tradition, but it still widely prevails. Even in Great Britain, where the rest of the public services have been thrown open to all classes, a certain social position is still demanded for candidates for the diplomatic service and the foreign office, and in addition to passing a competitive examination, they must be nominated by someone of recognized station prepared to vouch for their social qualifications. In America, where no regular diplomatic service exists, all diplomatic agents are nominated by the president.

The existence of an official diplomatic service, however, by no means excludes the appointment of outsiders to diplomatic posts. It is, in fact, one of the main grievances of the regular diplomatic body that the great rewards of their profession, the embassies, are so often assigned to politicians or others who have not passed through the drudgery of the service. But though this practice has, doubtless, sometimes been abused, it is impossible to criticize the wisdom of its occasional application.

A word may be added as to the part played by women in diplomacy. So far as their unofficial influence upon it is concerned, it would be impossible to exaggerate its importance; it would suffice to mention three names taken at random from the annals of the 19th century, Madame de Stael, Baroness von Krudener, and Princess Lieven. Gentz comments on the "feminine intrigues" that darkened the counsels of the congresses of Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle, and from which the powers so happily escaped in the bachelor seclusion of Troppau. Nor is it to be supposed that statesmen will ever renounce a diplomatic weapon so easy of disguise and so potent for use. A brilliant _salon_ presided over by a woman of charm may be a most valuable centre of a political propaganda; and ladies are still widely employed in the secret diplomacy of the powers. Their employment as regularly accredited diplomatic agents, however, though not unknown, has been extremely rare. An interesting instance is the appointment of Catherine of Aragon, when princess of Wales, as representative of her father, Ferdinand the Catholic, at the court of Henry VII. (G. A. Bergenroth, _Calendar of State Papers ... England and Spain--in the Archives at Simancas, &c._, i. pp. xxxiii, cxix).

LITERATURE.--Besides general works on international law (q.v.) which
necessarily deal with the subject of diplomacy, a vast mass of
treatises on diplomatic agents exists. The earliest printed work is
the _Tractatus de legato_ (Rome, 1485) of Gundissalvus (Gonsalvo de
Villadiego), professor of law at Salamanca, auditor for Spain at the
Roman court of the Rota, and bishop of Oviedo; but the first really
systematic writer on the subject was Albericus Gentilis, _De
legationibus libri iii_. (London, 1583, 1585, Hanover, 1596, 1607,
1612). For a full bibliography of works on ambassadors see Baron
Diedrich H. L. von Ompteda, _Litteratur des gesammten sowohl
naturlichen als positiven Volkerrechts_ (Regensburg, 1785), p. 534,
&c., which was completed and continued by the Prussian minister Karl
Albert von Kamptz, in _Neue Literatur des Volkerrechts seit dem Jahre
1784_ (Berlin, 1817), p. 231. A list of writers, with critical and
biographical remarks, is also given in Ernest Nys's "Les Commencements
de la diplomatie et le droit d'ambassade jusqu'a Grotius," in the
_Revue de droit international_, vol. xvi. p. 167. Other useful modern
works on the history of diplomacy are: E. C. Grenville-Murray,
_Embassies and Foreign Courts, a History of Diplomacy_ (2nd ed.,
1856); J. Zeller, _La Diplomatie francaise vers le milieu du XVI^e
siecle_ (Paris, 1881); A. O. Meyer, _Die englische Diplomatie in
Deutschland zur Zeit Eduards VI. und Mariens_ (Breslau, 1900); and,
above all, Otto Krauske, _Die Entwickelung der standgien Diplomatie
vom funfzehnten Jahrhundert bis zu den Beschlussen von 1815 und 1818_,
in Gustav Schmoller's _Staats- und socialwissenschaftliche
Forschungen_, vol. v. (Leipzig, 1885). To these may be added, as
admirably illustrating in detail the early developments of modern
diplomacy, Logan Pearsall Smith's _Life and Letters of Sir Henry
Wotton_ (Oxford, 1907). Of works on modern diplomacy the most
important are the _Guide diplomatique_ of Baron Charles de Martens,
new edition revised by F. H. Geffcken, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1866), and P.
Pradier-Fodere, _Cours de droit diplomatique_, 2 vols. (Paris, 1881).
(W. A. P.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] La Bruyere, _Caracteres_, ii. 77 (ed. P. Jouast, Paris, 1881).

[2] To Wellesley, in Stapleton's _Canning_, i. 374.

[3] For the motives of Metternich's foreign policy see
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: _History_ (iii. 332-333).

[4] e.g. _A History of Diplomacy in the International Development of
Europe_, by D. J. Hill (London and New York, 1905).

[5] For this see Hinschius, _Kirchenrecht_, i. p. 498.

[6] The Venetians, however, in their turn, doubtless learned their
diplomacy originally from the Byzantines, with whom their trade
expansion in the Levant early brought them into close contact. For
Byzantine diplomacy see ROMAN EMPIRE, LATER: _Diplomacy_.

[7] See Eugenio Alberi, _Le Relazioni degli ambasciatori Veneti al
senato_, 15 vols. (Florence, 1839-1863).

[8] The _apocrisiarii_ ([Greek: apokrisiarioi]) or _responsales_
should perhaps be mentioned, though they certainly did not set the
precedent for the modern permanent missions. They were resident
agents, practically legates, of the popes at the court of
Constantinople. They were established by Pope Leo I., and continued
until the Iconoclastic controversy broke the intimate ties between
East and West. See Luxardo, _Das vordekretalische Gesandtschaftsrecht
der Papste_ (Innsbruck, 1878); also Hinschius, _Kirchenrecht_, i.
501.

[9] N. Bianchi, _Le Materie politiche relative all' estero degli
archivi di stato piemontese_ (Bologna, Modena, 1875), p. 29.

[10] Ib. Note 2, _teneamus et deputemus ibidem continue mansurum._

[11] The first ambassador of Venice to visit England was Zuanne da
Lezze, who came in 1319 to demand compensation for the plundering of
Venetian ships by English pirates.

[12] Germonius, _De legatis principum et populorum libri tres_ (Rome,
1627), chap. vi. p. 164; Paschalius, _Legatus_ (Rouen, 1598), p. 302.
Etienne Dolet, who had been secretary to Cardinal Jean du Bellay, and
was burned for atheism in 1546, in his _De officio legati_ (1541)
advises ambassadors to surround themselves with taciturn servants, to
employ vigilant spies, and to set afoot all manner of fictions,
especially when negotiating with the court of Rome or with the
Italian princes.

[13] See Pearsall Smith, _Sir Henry Wotton_, pp. 49, 126 et seq.

[14] Francois de Callieres, _De la maniere de negocier avec les
souverains_ (Brussels, 1716). See also A. Sorel, _Recueil des
instructions donnees aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France_ (Paris,
1884), e.g. vol. _Autriche_, pp. 77, 88, 102, 112.

[15] "Nova res est, quod sciam, et infelicis hujus aetatis infelix
partus.... Hinc oriri securitatem universorum, hinc stabiliri pacem
gentium. Quae utinam tam vere dicerentur, quam speciose. Ego quidem,
ne quid dissimulem, ab istis seorsum sentio. Nimirum, effoeta
virtutis, foecunda fraudis haec saecula video peperisse spissata haec
imperia, sive summas potestates, unde, ut e vomitariis, hae legationes
undatim se fundunt." Paschalius, _Legatus_ (1598), p. 447. So too
Felix de la Mothe Le Vayer (1547-1625), in his _Legatus_ (Paris,
1579), says "Legatos tunc primum aut non multum post institutos fuisse
cum Pandora malorum omnium semina in hunc mundum ... demisit."

[16] _De jure belli et pacis_ (Amsterdam, 1621), ii. c. 18, S 3, n. 2.

[17] The term _corps diplomatique_ originated about the middle of the
18th century. "The Chancellor Furst," says Ranke (xxx. 47, note),
"does not use it as yet in his report (1754) but he knows it," and it
would appear that it had just been invented at Vienna. "Corps
diplomatique, nom qu'une dame donna un jour a ce corps nombreux de
ministres etrangers a Vienne."

[18] So too Pradier-Fodere, vol. i. p. 262.

[19] Thus Charles V. would not allow the representatives of the duke
of Mantua, Ferrara, &c., to style themselves "ambassadors," on the
ground that this title could be borne only by the agents of kings and
of the republic of Venice, and not by those of states whose
sovereignty was impaired by any feudal relation to a superior power.
(See Krauske p. 155.)

[20] See Pradier-Fodere, i. 265.

[21] Gentilis, who had been consulted by the government in the case
of the Spanish ambassador, Don Bernardino de Mendoza, expelled for
intriguing against Queen Elizabeth, lays this down definitely. An
ambassador, he says, need not be received, and he may be expelled. In
actual practice a diplomatic agent who has made himself objectionable
is withdrawn by his government on the representations of that to
which he is accredited, and it is customary, before an ambassador is
despatched, to find out whether he is a _persona grata_ to the power
to which he is accredited.

[22] See Zeller.

[23] A. O. Meyer, p. 22.

[24] See the amusing account of the methods of these agents in
Morysine to Cecil (January 23, 1551-1552), _Cal. State Pap. Edw.
VI._, No. 530.

DIPLOMATIC, the science of diplomas, founded on the critical study of the "diplomatic" sources of history: diplomas, charters, acts, treaties, contracts, judicial records, rolls, chartularies, registers, &c. The employment of the word "diploma," as a general term to designate an historical document, is of comparatively recent date. The Roman diploma, so called because it was formed of two sheets of metal which were shut together (Gr. [Greek: diploun], to double) like the leaves of a book, was the passport or licence to travel by the public post; also, the certificate of discharge, conferring privileges of citizenship and marriage on soldiers who had served their time; and, later, any imperial grant of privileges. The word was adopted, rather pedantically, by the humanists of the Renaissance and applied by them to important deeds and to acts of sovereign authority, to privileges granted by kings and by great personages; and by degrees the term became extended and embraced generally the documents of the middle ages.

_History of the Study._--The term "diplomatic," the French _diplomatique_, is a modern adaptation of the Latin phrase _res diplomatica_ employed in early works upon the subject, and more especially in the first great text-book, the _De re diplomatica_, issued in 1681 by the learned Benedictine, Dom Jean Mabillon, of the abbey of St Germain-des-Pres. Mabillon's treatise was called forth by an earlier work of Daniel van Papenbroeck, the editor of the _Acta Sanctorum_ of the Bollandists, who, with no great knowledge or experience of archives, undertook to criticize the historical value of ancient records and monastic documents, and raised wholesale suspicions as to their authenticity in his _Propylaeum antiquarium circa veri ac falsi discrimen in vetustis membranis_, which he printed in 1675. This was a rash challenge to the Benedictines, and especially to the congregation of St Maur, or confraternity of the Benedictine abbeys of France, whose combined efforts produced great literary works which still remain as monuments of profound learning. Mabillon was at that time engaged in collecting material for a great history of his order. He worked silently for six years before producing the work above referred to. His refutation of Papenbroeck's criticisms was complete, and his rival himself accepted Mabillon's system of the study of diplomatic as the true one. The _De re diplomatica_ established the science on a secure basis; and it has been the foundation of all subsequent works on the subject, although the immediate result of its publication was a flood of controversial writings between the Jesuits and the Benedictines, which, however, did not affect its stability.

In Spain, the Benedictine Perez published, in 1688, a series of dissertations following the line of Mabillon's work. In England, Madox's _Formulare Anglicanum_, with a dissertation concerning ancient charters and instruments, appeared in 1702, and in 1705 Hickes followed with his _Linguarum septentrionalium thesaurus_, both accepting the principles laid down by the learned Benedictine. In Italy, Maffei appeared with his _Istoria diplomatica_ in 1727, and Muratori, in 1740, introduced dissertations on diplomatic into his great work, the _Antiquitates Italicae_. In Germany, the first diplomatic work of importance was that by Bessel, entitled _Chronicon Gotwicense_ and issued in 1732; and this was followed closely by similar works of Baring, Eckhard and Heumann.

France, however, had been the cradle of the science, and that country continued to be the home of its development. Mabillon had not taken cognizance of documents later than the 13th century. Arising out of a discussion relative to the origin of the abbey of St Victor en Caux and the authenticity of its archives, a more comprehensive work than Mabillon's was compiled by the two Benedictines, Dom Toustain and Dom Tassin, viz. the _Nouveau Traite de diplomatique_, in six volumes, 1750-1765, which embraced more than diplomatic proper and extended to all branches of Latin palaeography. With great industry the compilers gathered together a mass of details; but their arrangement is faulty, and the text is broken up into such a multitude of divisions and subdivisions that it is tediously minute. However, its more extended scope has given the _Nouveau Traite_ an advantage over Mabillon's work, and modern compilations have drawn largely upon it.

As a result of the Revolution, the archives of the middle ages lost in France their juridical and legal value; but this rather tended to enhance their historical importance. The taste for historical literature revived. The Academie des Inscriptions fostered it. In 1821 the Ecole des Chartes was founded; and, after a few years of incipient inactivity, it received a further impetus, in 1829, by the issue of a royal ordinance re-establishing it. Thenceforth it has been an active centre for the teaching and for the encouragement of the study of diplomatic throughout the country, and has produced results which other nations may envy. Next to France, Germany and Austria are distinguished as countries where activity has been displayed in the systematic study of diplomatic archives, more or less with the support of the state. In Italy, too, diplomatic science has not been neglected. In England, after a long period of regrettable indifference to the study of the national and municipal archives of the country, some effort has been made in recent years to remove the reproach. The publications of the Public Record Office and of the department of MSS. in the British Museum are more numerous and are issued more regularly than in former times; and an awakened interest is manifested by the foundation in the universities of a few lectureships in diplomatic and palaeography, and by the attention which those subjects receive in such an institution as the London School of Economics, and in the publications of private literary societies. But such efforts can never show the systematic results which are to be attained by a special institution of the character of the French Ecole des Chartes.

_Extent of the Science._--The field covered by the study of diplomatic is so extensive and the different kinds of documents which it takes into its purview are so numerous and various, that it is impossible to do more than give a few general indications of their nature. No nation can have advanced far on the path of civilization before discovering the necessity for documentary evidence both in public and in private life. The laws, the constitutions, the decrees of government, on the one hand, and private contracts between man and man, on the other, must be embodied in formal documents, in order to ensure permanent record. In the case of a nation advancing independently from a primitive to a later stage of civilization we should have to trace the origin of its documentary records and examine their development from a rudimentary condition. But in an inquiry into the history of the documents of the middle ages in Europe we do not begin with primitive forms. Those ages inherited the documentary system which had been created and developed by the Romans; and, imperfect and limited in number as are the earliest surviving charters and diplomas of European medieval history, they present themselves to us fully developed and cast in the mould and employing the methods and formulae of the earlier tradition. Based on this foundation the chanceries of the several countries of Europe, as they came into existence and were organized, reduced to method and rule on one general system the various documents which the exigencies of public and of private life from time to time called into existence, each individual chancery at the same time following its own line of practice in detail, and evolving and confirming particular formulas which have become characteristic of it.

_Classification of Documents._--If we classify these documents under the two main heads of public and private deeds, we shall have to place in the former category the legislative, administrative, judicial, diplomatic documents emanating from public authority in public form: laws, constitutions, ordinances, privileges, grants and concessions, proclamations, decrees, judicial records, pleas, treaties; in a word, every kind of deed necessary for the orderly government of a civilized state. In early times many of these were comprised under the general term of "letters," _litterae_, and to the large number of them which were issued in open form and addressed to the community the specific title of "letters patent," _litterae patentes_, was given. In contradistinction those public documents which were issued in closed form under seal were known as "close letters," _litterae clausae_.

Such public documents belong to the state archives of their several countries, and are the monuments of administrative and political and domestic history of a nation from one generation to another. In no country has so perfect a series been preserved as in our own. Into the Public Record Office in London have been brought together all the collections of state archives which were formerly stored in different official repositories of the kingdom. Beginning with the great survey of Domesday, long series of enrolments of state documents, in many instances extending from the times of the Angevin kings to our own day in almost unbroken sequence, besides thousands of separate deeds of all descriptions, are therein preserved (see RECORD).

Under the category of private documents must be included, not only the deeds of individuals, but also those of corporate bodies representing private interests and standing in the position of individual units in relation to the state, such as municipal bodies and monastic foundations. The largest class of documents of this character is composed of those numerous conveyances of real property and other title deeds of many descriptions and dating from early periods which are commonly described by the generic name of "charters," and which are to be found in thousands, not only in such public repositories as the Public Record Office and the British Museum, but also in the archives of municipal and other corporate bodies throughout the country and in the muniment-rooms of old families. There are also the records of the manorial courts preserved in countless court-rolls and registers; also the scattered muniments of the dissolved monasteries represented by the many collections of charters and the valuable chartularies, or registers of charters, which have fortunately survived and exist both in public and in private keeping.

It will be noticed that in this enumeration of public and private documents in England reference is made to rolls. The practice of entering records on rolls has been in favour in England from a very early date subsequent to the Norman Conquest; and while in other countries the comprehensive term of "charters" (literally "papers": Gr. [Greek: chartes]) is employed as a general description of documents of the middle ages, in England the fuller phrase "charters and rolls" is required. The master of the rolls, the _Magister Rotulorum_, is the official keeper of the public records.

From the great body of records, both public and private, many fall easily and naturally into the class in which the text takes a simpler narrative form; such as judicial records, laws, decrees, proclamations, registers, &c., which tell their own story in formulae and phraseology early developed and requiring little change. These we may leave on one side. For fuller description we select those deeds which, conferring grants and favours and privileges, conform more nearly to the idea of the Roman diploma and have received the special attention of the chanceries in the development and arrangement of their formulae and in their methods of execution.

Structure of medieval diplomas.

All such medieval deeds are composed of certain recognized members or
sections, some essential, others special and peculiar to the most
elaborate and solemn documents. A deed of the more elaborate character
is made up of two principal divisions: 1. the TEXT, in which is set
out the object of the deed, the statement of the considerations and
circumstances which have led to it, and the declaration of the will
and intention of the person executing the deed, together with such
protecting clauses as the particular circumstances of the case may
require; 2. the PROTOCOL (originally, the first sheet of a papyrus
roll; Gr. [Greek: protos], first, and [Greek: kollan], to glue),
consisting of the introductory and of the concluding formulae:
superscription, address, salutation, &c., at the beginning, and date,
formulae of execution, &c., at the end, of the deed. The latter
portion of the protocol is sometimes styled the eschatocol (Gr.
[Greek: eschatos], last, and [Greek: kollan], to glue). While the text
followed certain formulae which had become fixed by common usage, the
protocol was always special and varied with the practices of the
several chanceries, changing in a sovereign chancery with each
successive reign.

The Invocation.

The Superscription.

The Address.

The Salutation.

The different sections of a full deed, taking them in order under the
heads of Initial Protocol, Text and Final Protocol or Eschatocol, are
as follows:--The initial protocol consists of the Invocation, the
Superscription, the Address and the Salutation. 1. The INVOCATION,
lending a character of sanctity to the proceedings, might be either
verbal or symbolic. The verbal invocation consisted usually of some
pious ejaculation, such as _In nomine Dei, In nomine domini nostri
Jesu Christi_; from the 8th century, _In nomine Sanctae et individuae
Trinitatis_; and later, _In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti_. The symbolic form was usually the _chrismon_, or monogram
composed of the Greek initials [Chi][Rho] of the name of Christ. In
the course of the 10th and 11th centuries this symbol came to be so
scrawled that it had probably lost all meaning with the scribes. From
the 9th century the letter C (initial of _Christus_) came gradually
into use, and in German imperial diplomas it superseded the
_chrismon_. Stenographic signs of the system known as Tironian notes
were also sometimes added to this symbol down to the end of the 10th
century, expressing such a phrase as _Ante omnia Christus_, or
_Christus_, or _Amen_. From the Merovingian period, too, a cross was
often used. The symbol gradually died out after the 12th century for
general use, surviving only in notarial instruments and wills. 2. The
SUPERSCRIPTION (_superscriptio, intitulatio_) expressed the name and
titles of the grantor or person issuing the deed. 3. The ADDRESS. As
diplomas were originally in epistolary form the address was then a
necessity. While in Merovingian deeds the old pattern was adhered to,
in the Carolingian period the address was sometimes omitted. From the
8th century it was not considered necessary, and a distinction arose
in the case of royal acts, those having the address being styled
letters, and those omitting it, charters. The general form of address
ran in phrase as _Omnibus_ (or _Universis_) _Christi fidelibus
presentes litteras inspecturis_. 4. The SALUTATION was expressed in
such words as _Salutem_; _Salutem et dilectionem_; _Salutem et
apostolicam benedictionem_, but it was not essential.

The Preamble.

The Notification.

The Exposition.

The Disposition.

The Final Clauses.

Then follows the text in five sections: the Preamble, the
Notification, the Exposition, the Disposition and the Final Clauses.
5. The PREAMBLE (_prologus_, _arenga_): an ornamental introduction
generally composed of pious or moral sentiments, a _prefatio ad
captandam benevolentiam_ which _facit ad ornamentum_, degenerating
into tiresome platitudes. It became stereotyped at an early age: in
the 10th and 11th centuries it was a most ornate performance; in the
12th century it was cut short; in the 13th century it died out. 6. The
NOTIFICATION (_notificatio_, _promulgatio_) was the publication of the
purport of the deed introduced by such a phrase as _notum sit_, &c. 7.
The EXPOSITION set out the motives influencing the issue of the deed.
8. The DISPOSITION described the object of the deed and the will and
intention of the grantor. 9. The FINAL CLAUSES ensured the fulfilment
of the terms of the deed; guarded against infringement, by comminatory
anathemas and imprecations, not infrequently of a vehement
description, or by penalties; guaranteed the validity of the deed;
enumerated the formalities of subscription and execution; reserved
rights, &c.

The Date.

The Appreciation.

The Authentication.

Next comes the final protocol or eschatocol comprising: the Date, the
Appreciation, the Authentication. It was particularly in this portion
of the deed that the varying practices of the several chanceries led
to minute and intricate distinctions at different periods. 10. The
DATE. By the Roman law every act must be dated by the day and the year
of execution. Yet in the middle ages, from the 9th to the 12th
century, a large proportion of deeds bears no date. In the most
ancient charters the date clause was frequently separated from the
body of the deed and placed in an isolated position at the foot of the
sheet. From the 12th century it commonly followed the text
immediately. Certain classes of documents, such as decrees of
councils, notarial deeds, &c., began with the date. The usual formula
was _data, datum, actum, factum, scriptum_. In the Carolingian period
a distinction grew up between _datum_ and _actum_, the former applying
to the time, the latter to the place, of date. In the papal chancery
from an early period down to the 12th century the use of a double date
prevailed, the first following the text and being inserted by the
scribe when the deed was written (_scriptum_), the second being added
at the foot of the deed on its execution (_actum_), by the chancellor
or other high functionary. From the Roman custom of dating by the
consular year arose the medieval practice of dating by the regnal year
of emperor, king or pope. Special dates were sometimes employed, such
as the year of some great historical event, battle, siege, pestilence,
&c. 11. The APPRECIATION. The _feliciter_ of the Romans became the
medieval _feliciter in Domino_, or _In Dei nomine feliciter_, or the
more simple _Deo gratias_ or the still more simple _Amen_, for the
auspicious closing of a deed. In Merovingian and Carolingian diplomas
it follows the date; in other cases it closes the text. In the greater
papal bulls it appears in the form of a triple _Amen_. _Benevalete_
was also employed as the appreciation in early deeds; but in
Merovingian diplomas and in papal bulls this valedictory salutation
becomes a mark of authentication, as will be noticed below. 12. The
AUTHENTICATION was a solemn proceeding which was discharged by more
than one act. The most important was the subscription or subscriptions
of the person or persons from whom the deed emanated. The laws of the
late Roman empire required the subscriptions and the impressions of
the signet seals of the parties and of the witnesses to the deed. The
subscription (_subscriptio_) comprised the name, signature and
description of the person signing. The impression of the signet (not
the signature) was the _signum_, sometimes _signaculum_, rarely
_sigillum_. The practice of subscribing with the autograph signature
obtained in the early middle ages, as appears from early documents
such as those of Ravenna. But from the 7th century it began to
decline, and by the 12th century it had practically ceased. In Roman
deeds an illiterate person affixed his mark, or _signum manuale_,
which was attested. The cross being an easy form for a mark, it was
very commonly used and naturally became connected with the Christian
symbol. Hence, in course of time, it came to be attached very
generally to subscriptions, autograph or otherwise. Great personages
who were illiterate required something more elaborate than a common
mark. Hence arose the use of the monogram, the _caracter nominis_,
composed of the letters of the name. The emperor Justin, who could not
write, made use of a monogram, as did also Theodoric, king of the
Ostrogoths. Those Merovingian kings, likewise, who were illiterate,
had their individual monograms; and at length Charlemagne adopted the
monogram as his regular form of signature. From his reign down to that
of Philip the Fair the monogram was the recognized sign manual of the
sovereigns of France (see AUTOGRAPHS). It was employed by the German
emperors down to the reign of Maximilian I. The royal use of the
monogram was naturally imitated by great officers and ecclesiastics.
But another form of sign manual also arose out of the subscription.
The closing word (usually _subscripsi_), written or abbreviated as
_sub._, or _ss._ or _s._, was often finished off with flourishes and
interlacings, sometimes accompanied with Tironian notes, the whole
taking the shape of a domed structure to which the French have given
the name of _ruche_ or bee-hive. Thus in the early middle ages we have
deeds authenticated by the subscription, usually autograph, giving the
name and titles of the person executing, and stating the part taken by
him in the deed, and closing with the _subscripsi_, often in shape of
the ruche and constituting the _signum manuale_. If not autograph, the
subscription might be impersonal in such form as _signum_ (or _signum
manus_) + N. In the Carolingian period, while phrases were constantly
used in the body of the deed implying that it was executed by
autograph subscription, it did not necessarily follow that such
subscription was actually written in person. The ruche was also
adopted by chancellors, notaries and scribes as their official mark.
While autograph subscriptions continued to be employed, chiefly by
ecclesiastics, down to the beginning of the 12th century, the monogram
was perpetuated from the 10th century by the notaries. Their marks,
simple at first, became so elaborate from the end of the 13th century
that they found it necessary to add their names in ordinary writing,
or also to employ a less complicated design. This was the commencement
of the modern practice of writing the signature which first came into
vogue in the 14th century.

The Benevalete.

The Rota.

To lend further weight and authority to the subscription, certain
symbols and forms were added at different periods. Imitating, the
corroborative _Legi_ of the Byzantine quaestor and the _Legimus_ of
the Eastern emperors, the Frankish chancery in the West made use of
the same form, notably in the reign of Charles the Bald, in some of
whose diplomas the _Legimus_ appears written in larger letters in red.
The valedictory _Benevalete_, employed in early deeds as a form of
appreciation (see above), appears in Merovingian and in early
Carolingian royal diplomas, and also in papal bulls, as an
authenticating addition to the subscription. In the diplomas it was
written in cursive letters in two lines, _Bene valete_, just to the
right of the incision cut in the sheet to hold fast the seal, which
sometimes even covered part of the word. In the most ancient papal
bulls it was written by the pope himself at the foot of the deed. in
two lines, generally in larger capital or uncial characters, placed
between two crosses. From the beginning of the 11th century it became
the fashion to link the letters; and, dating from the time of Leo IX.,
A.D. 1048-1054, the _Benevalete_ was inscribed in form of a monogram.
During Leo's pontificate it was also accompanied with a flourish
called the _Komma_, which was only an exaggeration of the mark of
punctuation (_periodus_) which from the 9th to the 11th century closed
the subscription and generally resembled the modern semicolon. Leo's
successors abandoned the _Komma_, but the monogrammatic _Benevalete_
continued, invariable in form, but from time to time varying in size.
In Leo IX.'s pontificate also was introduced the _Rota_. This sign,
when it had received its final shape in the 11th century, was in form
of a wheel, composed of two concentric circles, in the space between
which was written the motto or device of the pope (_signum papae_),
usually a short sentence from one of the Psalms or some other portion
of Scripture; preceded by a small cross, which the pontiff himself
sometimes inscribed. The central space within the wheel was divided
(by cross lines) into four quarters, the two upper ones being occupied
by the names of the apostles St Peter and St Paul, and the two lower
ones by the name of the pope. The _Rota_ was placed on the left of the
subscription, the monogrammatic _Benevalete_ on the right. The two
signs were likewise adopted by certain ecclesiastical chanceries and
by feudal lords, particularly in the 12th century. From the same
period also the Spanish and Portuguese monarchs adopted the _Rota_,
the _signo rodado_, which is so conspicuous in the royal charters of
the Peninsula.

Sealing.

Besides the subscription, an early auxiliary method of authentication
was by the impression of the seal which, as noticed above, was
required by the Roman law. But the general use of the signet gradually
failed, and by the 7th century it had ceased. Still it survived in the
royal chanceries, and the sovereigns both of the Merovingian and of
the Carolingian lines had their seals; and, in the 8th century, the
mayors of the palace likewise. It is interesting to find instances of
the use of antique intaglios for the purpose by some of them. In
England too there is proof that the Mercian kings Offa and Coenwulf
used seals, in imitation of the Frankish monarchs. In the 7th century,
and still more so in the 8th and 9th centuries, the royal seals were
of exaggerated size: the precursors of the great seals of the later
sovereigns of western Europe. The waxen seals of the early diplomas
were in all cases _en placard_: that is, they were attached to the
face of the document and not suspended from it, being held in position
by a cross-cut incision in the material, through which the wax was
pressed and then flattened at the back. On the cessation of autograph
signatures in subscriptions, the general use of seals revived,
beginning in the 10th century and becoming the ordinary method of
authentication from the 12th to the 15th century inclusive. Even when
signatures had once again become universal, the seal continued to hold
its place; and thus sealing is, to the present day, required for the
legal execution of a deed. The attachment _en placard_ was
discontinued, as a general practice, in the middle of the 11th
century; and seals thenceforward were, for the most part, suspended,
leathern thongs being used at first, and afterwards silken and hempen
cords or parchment labels. In documents of minor importance it was
sometimes the custom to impress the seal or seals on one or more
strips of the parchment of the deed itself, cut, but not entirely
detached, from the lower margin, and left to hang loose. Besides waxen
impressions of seals, impressions in metal, bearing a device on both
faces, after the fashion of a coin, and suspended, were employed from
an early period. The most widely known instances are the _bullae_
attached to papal documents, generally of lead. The earliest surviving
papal _bulla_ is one of Pope Zacharias, A.D. 746, but earlier examples
are known from drawings. The papal _bulla_ was a disk of metal stamped
on both sides. From the time of Boniface V. to Leo IV., A.D. 617-855,
the name of the pontiff, in the genitive case, was impressed on the
obverse, and his title as pope on the reverse, e.g. _Bonifati/ papae_.
After that period, for some time, the name was inscribed in a circle
round a central ornament. Other variations followed; but at length in
the pontificate of Paschal II., A.D. 1099, the _bulla_ took the form
which it afterwards retained: on the obverse, the heads of the
apostles St Peter and St Paul; on the reverse, the pope's name, title
and number in succession. In the period of time between his election
and consecration, the pope made use of the half-bull, that is, the
obverse only was impressed. It should be mentioned that, in order to
conform to modern conditions and for convenience of despatch through
the post, Leo XII., in 1878, substituted for the leaden _bulla_ a red
ink stamp bearing the heads of the two apostles with the name of the
pope inscribed as a legend.

The Carolingian monarchs also used metal _bullae_. None of
Charlemagne's have survived, but there are still extant leaden
examples of Charles the Bald. The use of lead was not persisted in
either in the chancery of France or in that of Germany. Golden
_bullae_ were employed on special occasions by both popes and temporal
monarchs; for example, they were attached to the confirmations of the
elections of the emperors in the 12th and 13th centuries; the bull of
Leo X. conferring the title of Defender of the Faith on Henry VIII. in
1524, and the deed of alliance between Henry and Francis I. in 1527,
had golden _bullae_; and other examples could be cited. But lead has
always been the common metal to be thus employed. In the southern
countries of Europe, where the warmth of the climate renders wax an
undesirable material, leaden _bullae_ have been in ordinary use, not
only in Italy but also in the Peninsula, in southern France, and in
the Latin East (see SEALS).

Formularies.