Page:The Persian Revolution of 1905-1909 (1910).djvu/24

xviii it (p. 185) as follows: “Most Europeans who have lived in Persia—find it rather difficult to explain why they like the people. In the Yazdí there is certainly much to lament, but there is something to admire, and very much more to like. A people who are open-handed, good-natured, affectionate, not always extravagantly conceited, and above all intensely human, are a people one cannot help getting to like when one lives among them for any time.”

Such quotations might be multiplied indefinitely, but I think that those already given will suffice to shew that I am not alone in believing that the Persians possess very real virtues, and are capable, under happier conditions than those which till lately prevailed, of recovering the position to which their talents entitle them. It will be observed that those who speak slightingly and contemptuously of them are generally either exponents of Welt-Politik, who, because they aspire to “think in continents,” cannot spare time to investigate with patience and form an independent judgement of national character; or globe-trotters, who, after a hasty journey from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea, retail the stories and opinions they have picked up from Europeans whom they have met on the way, always with a view to the entertainment of their readers, and often with preconceived ideas derived from experiences of other Eastern lands which differ as much from Persia as Norway does from Portugal; or disappointed concessionnaires; or cynical and blasé diplomatists. Those, on the other hand, who have had intimate relations with the Persians and are acquainted with their language have generally found, as Mr Napier Malcolm found, much that is loveable and not a little that is admirable in their character. Speaking for myself, I confess to a very sincere affection for them, and a conviction that the best type of Persian is not only the most delightful companion imaginable, but can be one of the most faithful and devoted friends whom it is possible to meet with.

The supporters of the movement whereof I have attempted in the following pages to describe the genesis and trace the development and history are indifferently spoken of as “Constitutionalists’ (Mashrúṭa-khwáh) and “Nationalists” (Millatí). Mashrúṭa means “conditioned” as opposed to “absolute” govern-