///
An old catchphrase says that one should use many languages to be properly understood: speaking to God, Latin; to the merchants, Greek and Arabic; to the sailors and engineers, English; to one’s lover, French; and so on. And what language should one use when speaking to diplomats, or what language should diplomats use?
The use of language in diplomacy is of major importance, since language is not a simple tool, vehicle for transmission of thoughts, or instrument of communication, but the very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so from the early beginnings of our profession. That is why from early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, Roman legates, etc., had to be well-spoken and polyglots.
Therefore, the answer to the question above is not simple at all. To start with, there is no single diplomatic lingua franca that could be inscribed in the above-mentioned catchphrase. In the past there were periods when one language or another served as a common means of inter-state communication, although usually limited to certain geographic areas or political groups of countries. Such a role was played by Acadian (Asyrian-Babilonian), mediaeval Greek, Latin, Arabic, Turkish, and later by Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Italian, Dutch, German, French, and recently by English. Very often attempts have been made to impose one language or another, with the argumentation that it is “clearer” or “most suitable for international negotiations”, etc. The fact that historically such a role has been taken in turns by so many languages proves that linguistic reasons are not decisive. On the contrary, it can be said that the dominant role of one language or another in diplomacy has resulted from the political, economic, or cultural domination of one power or another in international relations.
The mentioning of the ability ancient diplomatic representatives had to speak many languages has the effect of showing that modern diplomats must be trained in at least three languages.