Curzon's Persia

MR. CURZON, who has written a great book¹ of some thirteen hundred pages on Persia, cannot be accused of approaching the subject without reasonable preparation. He had already visited central Asia before conceiving the idea of the present work, and had issued a volume on the Russian question. Subsequently he devoted six months to steady travel over eastern, central, and southern Persia. The Caspian and northwestern provinces he appears not to have visited. He has supplemented his personal observations by a study of the various works, from two hundred to three hundred in number, written by Europeans on Persia, and has aimed to give correctness to His observation and study by correspondence with residents in that country. Three solid years have been given to collecting and throwing the material thus obtained into the two volumes now before us.

The result is complex, and for that reason it is not altogether satisfactory.

Books of travel and observation may be classified under several heads, from the trait which most predominates ; although perhaps few are absolutely distinct, from the others. One traveler cares not for statistics or politics; it is the personal element that gives value to his book, and it is impressions rather than facts that we find in his pages, which are therefore sometimes very fascinating. Such works are Eothen, Monasteries in the Levant, written by Mr. Curzon’s father, Brydone’s Italy, and Beckford’s Portugal. We are not sure that for one who wishes to gain a clear ensemble of the character of a country this class of books of travel is not the most valuable, as it is also the only one that can be included with works of literature.

Another traveler, while giving us a thread of narrative on which to string his facts, is really concerned with facts alone, and aims at a detailed description of races, customs, topography, or politics, one or all. Such works are Chardin’s Persia, Young’s France, and Wallace’s East Indian Archipelago. Of a different order, although the result of travel, are works like Madame de Staël’s Germany, or those of Tocqueville and Brice on America, from which the personal element is entirely eliminated, while at the same time they are directly due to personal observation and travel.

Now, Mr. Curzon’s book is complex because it undertakes to combine the features of the last two of the above classes. He tells us that “ although the primary object of this work may be described as political, there will yet be found a good deal of history in its pages. . . . Similarly, in the domain of archæology, I have not forgotten that while Persia is primarily the battleground of diplomatists and the market of tradesmen, it also contains antiquarian remains in great number that have employed the pens, and still engage the intellects, of famous scholars. . . . To the professor, therefore, as well as to the politician and the student, I make my appeal.”

This is a sufficiently comprehensive plan. But the importance of the subject is such that, if for no other reason than for the pivotal character of Persia in the intrigues of European powers for the control of central Asia, it would have been better if the author had cast the work into a purely impersonal survey of the country, as he has done regarding those parts of Persia which he did not visit. But he has confused his plan by a narrative of travel over certain provinces, which adds little or nothing of importance to what other competent tourists have already said, and presents no stirring compensating adventures. Aware of this incongruity, the writer suggests in a note that certain specified chapters be read by the “ amateur,” while the others are commended to the “ trained acumen ” of the student. The first list might have been judiciously omitted, or relegated to a distinct volume. In this way a more dignified and symmetrical form would have been gained, and the “ trained acumen ” of the “ student ” would have been saved labor in hunting for his subject, as well as in handling a work that even then would have been sufficiently bulky.

It is also to be regretted that when undertaking such a comprehensive plan the author should have omitted a chapter on the religious question or the variety of sects in Persia. One cannot thoroughly understand the Persian character, nor the trend of its history for thousands of years, without investigating the serious side of a people who have been treated as volatile and insincere by so many who have failed to recognize this phase of the subject. Whether there ever was such a man as Zerdusht, or whether, as some now claim, he never existed, the fact remains that one of the world’s great religions originated in Persia ; and from the remote period of its origin until now the Persian mind has always shown a distinct bias in the direction of religious and philosophical speculation, blending in some cases with aspirations in the direction of social and political reform such as no other Asiatic people have exhibited to the same degree. There is something wonderfully impressive in the spiritual creed of the worshipers of fire in those vague, weird ages before Alexander the Great, — ages of which we know so little, and which appeal so keenly to the imaginative mind. The revolt organized by the house of Sassan was a religious as well as political movement ; and one of the great events of the reign of Ardeshir Babegan was the reduction of the Zendavesta to writing, and the revival of the influence of the Magian hierarchy. The intellectual restlessness or activity of Persia under the Sassanidæ was shown by the numerous sects which arose at that period, of which one was the famous eclectic sect called Manichæan after its founder, Manee. Another politico-religious sect was established by Mazdâk, which acquired such influence that kings were among its converts. It aimed at a communistic attack on existing institutions, and became so dangerous that Auourshirvan was obliged to subvert it by stratagem, and over one hundred thousand of its followers were slain in one day. The doctrines of Mazdâk spread beyond Persia ; and, as St. Martin shows, that prophet was enrolled with the teachers of true gnostic wisdom. Mohammedanism did not check this tendency to speculative religion, which continues in full activity until now in Persia. Under the guise of Islamism it finds vent in many directions. It is not the tombs of Hafiz or Omar Khayyám which are therefore of chief interest to us, but their doctrines and speculations, which are still rife in Persia, the land of their birth.

Babism, or the sect of the Bab, about which Mr. Curzon has something to say, perhaps because of its political aspects, is one of the latest of these religious phenomena. But in many respects it reminds us of the sect of Mazdâk. The author places the number of Babees at about a million. Although they are doubtless increasing rapidly, and form a positive menace to the established régime, it is probable that he has considerably exaggerated their importance and numbers. He also denies the alleged communistic doctrines of the Bab. In this regard we think he is mistaken. Some of the more prominent members of the sect undoubtedly disclaim and perhaps condemn such views. But the opinions regarding the theoretic communism of the Babs come from too many distinct sources to be without some foundation in fact.

What Mr. Curzon has to say about the scope, results, and possibilities of Christian missions in Persia is less flippant and superficial than the hasty observations of so many travelers. Although perhaps not strictly in accordance with the opinions of the home churches or of the missionaries themselves, his views appear to us to be, on the whole, kind in spirit and sound in theory. His remarks on the friendly toleration of the Shah’s government are also eminently just. The fact is that missions in Persia and Turkey offer a practical illustration of Christ’s statement, “ I came not to send peace, but a sword.”The missionary is generally an agitator, in countries where the rulers already have very great difficulty in preserving order among numerous races eying each other with jealousy and hatred, and perpetually intriguing for national independence, or for liberties for whose adoption the conditions are not yet ripe. The missionary is so full of zeal, and of belief in the absolute correctness of his own creed and the absolute falsity of all other creeds, that he can hardly move or speak without arousing sentiments qualified to disturb the status quo. We do not intend by this to inveigh against missions, but rather to suggest, in view of these facts, that missionaries in Asiatic countries do not always Sufficiently realize the embarrassing position of the governments whose hospitality they enjoy, and are not sufficiently grateful for the measure of toleration permitted to their residence and labors. There are so - called Christian countries where no such liberties would be allowed. Russia, notwithstanding her treaty of comity with the United States, only reluctantly allows our missionaries to cross her territory to reach Persia. Is there any one so fatuous as to suppose for a moment that, if the Muscovite ruled either on the Bosphorus or at Teherân, an American missionary would be permitted to remain in either country a month ?

The author’s observations regarding the temporary marriages of Meschêd appear to us to be unjust towards that place, of which he says, “ There is probably not a more immoral city in Asia.” Whatever we may think of the system of the sighêh, or temporary wife, it is allowed in most Mohammedan countries ; it is not more peculiar to Meschêed than to other parts of the East; it is considered strictly lawful, and is as much regulated by the written code of Persia as any other part of the social system.

At the outset Mr. Curzon gives a list of all the writers of travel in Persia for the last six centuries whose works have been either written in or translated into a European tongue. He gives the date of residence or travels of each author; and one’s respect for that ancient empire cannot but be increased by such a formidable bibliography and the noted names it presents. It is a rather curious exhibition of human nature that the author severely criticises many of these books, all of which he professes to have read, and is particularly savage against any sentiment of sympathy with the romantic phases of Persian life, scenery, and history, — a sympathy he rarely allows himself to express. And yet certain of his most important statements of facts are confessedly gathered from some of the works he most severely condemns. The fact is that the author is everywhere in good humor with himself, and takes occasion to pat himself on the back more than once, and sometimes at the expense of others.

But, as already suggested, this work is as much a compilation as the result of new exploration. The author has gathered his materials with patience and apparent conscientiousness ; but for much that appears in these pages he is indebted to the labors of his predecessors in this field. Practically the larger part of Mr. Curzon’s book is in the nature of a gazetteer; the work has somewhat the character of a handbook. As such it cannot but prove highly valuable, the statistics being in the main about as correct as is possible when treating of Oriental countries. Absolute precision cannot be expected, but simply approximations. Apropos of this, Mr. Curzon takes occasion to differ from General Schindler and Zolotareff, the latter of whom, as a Russian, had a motive for estimating the population of Persia as low as six million. Mr. Curzon is entirely justified in concluding from the data that the population is at least nine million, which is sufficiently small for a country twice the size of Germany, There is no reason to believe that the population of Persia proper was ever very much larger than it, is now, though perhaps differently distributed. Some parts, such as Seistân, were probably more densely peopled than to-day. There are evidences that it was so aside from such inferential evidence as the descriptions of Firdoüsee, who locates the great house of the hero Rustêm in that province, and indicates that he ruled a powerful satrapy. But it is more reasonable to suppose that the population in early times was of a shifting character, just as it has been since the Mohammedan era, and that the ruined cities have simply been replaced by others founded elsewhere. The Persians, who are Aryans, and who are still the ruling, the commercial, and the intellectual race of Persia, won their place in history, and still maintain themselves, by brains rather than by numbers. The vast armies which they sent against Greece and Egypt were recruited chiefly from tributaries whom the Aryas or Persians understood how to rule by an executive ability which has not wholly abandoned them to this day. The fact that the present dynasty is of Turkish origin does not vitiate the general correctness of this statement. The details about the imports and exports of such a country must naturally be more or less difficult to ascertain with precision, besides varying from year to year. Under the circumstances, the author appears to have reached a fair approximation of the average values. But he omits to call attention to the fact that a very considerable proportion of the imports from England, as well as some from the Continent, are American fabrics, which, owing to the lack of enterprise of our exporters, reach Persia in that roundabout way.

In estimating values and the depreciation of the purchasing power of Persian money, the author forgets that this is not a feature peculiar to Persia or to Turkey, as too many assume with him. It is in accordance with a financial law common even in countries having a sound currency ; one reason for which may be the vastly increasing supply of the precious metals. Since the reign of Henry VII., the English unit of value has depreciated to about one thirty-sixth of its then purchasing power. In other words, a man with an income of £1000 at that time was relatively as rich as he who now has £36,000. The fall in Persian coin is, therefore, not wholly due to the corrupt practices of her officials.

Mr. Curzon does not appreciate the peculiar scenery of Persia. To the true lover of nature there is no landscape so bare or so lonely as not to be full of suggestion and inspiration to the imagination. Wordsworth well says, “ Nature never did betray the heart that loved her.” Vast plains are sublime, like the sea, and there is no coloring so rich yet tender as the bare scarred side of a lofty mountain, full of character as the rugged face of a veteran who has been through the wars. The poet Gray said, “ Not a precipice, not a torrent, not a cliff, but is pregnant with religion and poetry.” But Mr. Curzon only sees beauty in grass and green trees, and seems to have very little sense of color. He makes an exception in favor of that noble mountain Demavend. When writing about that stupendous cone, he gives the rein to an enthusiasm of which a little more would have added greatly to the attraction of his chapters. Accepting the estimates of Schindler, he fixes the height of Demavend at 19,600 feet. But some have made it 21,000 feet. It would be interesting to know if Schindler based his calculations on the aneroid barometer. After a very extensive experience in the Andes of Ecuador, Whymper, the veteran mountain climber, emphatically declared that the aneroid barometer is absolutely unreliable above the sea level.

One of the most important portions of Mr. Curzon’s work is that relating to the antiquities of Persia, especially those in and around Persepolis. Like most of his book, it is to a certain degree a compilation, for he gives extracts from the observations of the numerous travelers and archæologists who have devoted so much attention to those very remarkable ruins, or be refers to them in the course of the running fire of criticism with which he treats the subject. But he imparts fresh interest to it by a careful personal study made on the spot, and his conclusions, if not always to be accepted, are suggestive and command careful consideration. What he has to say in regard to the names of Pasargadæ and Persepolis, in discussing the identification of those places with the ruins now bearing their names, leads us to inquire why it has never occurred to any one that one name may be the Persian and the other the Greek for one and the same place. The distance between the ruins of Persepolis and those supposed to be Pasargadæ is very moderate, although they lie in two separate valleys; and the name may have been applied to a royal district containing the abodes of successive sovereigns, the vast paradises or hunting-parks of the king; the palaces of the nobles, also surrounded in Oriental style by very extensive grounds ; and, filling up the space between them, the adobe dwellings of the people, which would also have invariably each its own garden. The vast extent of Babylon was due to such a plan. Persepolis is of course not a Persian name, but is clearly a Greek compound, meaning, apparently, the city of the Persian, which may also have been the meaning of Pasargadæ. Pars or Fars. p and fbeing interchangeable in the Zend language, was the vernacular for Persia, whence Parsee or Pars-i, — of Persia, — by which appellative the Persians of Bombay are known. Gad may have been like the terminative bad, which means place or city. The termination œ was simply the Greek feminine plural form, used in this case as in αΐ ’Αθήναί. All ancient Persian proper names came to us through the Greek, and secondarily through the Latin ; and to this day the Greeks never use the name of a foreign city without giving the Greek inflected terminative, sometimes in the singular and sometimes in the plural. For example, London and Paris they pluralize; they also often do it with foreign surnames. Kur they made Kuros. Daru, Dareios ; whence the Latin Cyrus and Darius. Following this analogy, Parsagad may therefore have been the place of which the Greek equivalent is Persepolis. We merely suggest this as a possible solution ; it may be worth while for archæologists to give it a moment’s consideration.

Mr. Curzon is in harmony with many students in deciding the art of the Achæmenian period to have been mimetic ; that is, borrowed from adjoining countries, especially from Assyria. The domination of Assyria, indicated by Firdoüsee in the legend of Zohâk, brought the Aryans into close relations with that country at a time when the race was preparing to assert itself as an intellectual as well as a political power. There is nothing exceptional in such an origin for Persian art. Few, if any great schools of art or literature have existed which have not in their genesis been indebted to suggestions from abroad. But the author is likewise undoubtedly right when he insists, against the assertions of Ragozin and others, that the art of Persepolis was not wholly mimetic, but exhibited remarkable native genius that differentiated it into a distinct type. We cannot agree with him, however, in assuming that the Achæmenian art became extinct with the dynasty that encouraged the construction of the sublime colonnades of Darius and Xerxes. A comparative study of Persian art through subsequent ages to the present time proves that the types first adopted were racial, and hence in accord with the national spirit. With slight modifications they have reappeared with every revival of art in Persia. The slender pillars and the general form of the Persepolitan capital were followed by the Sufavees, and the mansions of Persia to-day continue to exhibit those types. Nor can there be the slightest question as to the character of the intervening walls and roofs at Pasargadæ and Persepolis. Mr. Curzon rightly surmises that the former were of adobe faced with tiles, such as those of various periods which were found by Dieulafoy at Susa, and that the latter were flat. composed of horizontal timbers covered with layers of packed earth. But we are rather surprised at his inconsistency in accepting the analogy in these respects, and failing to observe the continuance of the resemblance as regards other details. The slender pillar shaft, the elongated capital, the basal platform or terrace, the mud-brick walls faced with tiles, and the flat roofs have been continuous features of the architecture of Persia.

As the political aspects are of great and growing importance, and indeed form the chief cause for the preparation of this work, the author has naturally devoted many pages not only to the commercial resources of Persia, but also to the question of railways, of strategic lines, and of the designs of Russia. While speaking of railways he alludes to the concession which Mr. Winston, the United States minister, nearly obtained tor that purpose; but he forgets to state that such a concession was offered to Mr. Winston’s predecessor, and was declined because the watchful jealousy of Russia and the existence of the Reuter concession made such a scheme impracticable for years to come. Contrary to his advice, an American company was eventually formed when Mr. Winston’s successor was in office, backed by capital and influence. It was to lay railways, dig artesian wells, have electric plants, etc.; but it could accomplish nothing in the face of the above obstacles, and gave up its plan after sinking considerable capital. Improvements will doubtless gradually appear in Persia as fast as can be expected in an ancient empire whose efforts at progress are suspiciously watched by her northern neighbor. More than that cannot reasonably be looked for now.

The author is doubtless quite justified in his appreciation of the administrative ability and patriotism of Nasr-ed-Deen Shah, who, to be fully understood and respected, must be seen in his own capital and native environment, instead of as a wanderer among the capitals of Europe, the butt of the witlings of the press, or of cunning diplomats who would belittle him in order to sap his influence and deprive him of the confidence of his allies.

The political situation in Persia is one of great interest to Europeans; but to Americans the careful study of the situation presented by Mr. Curzon, which it is well worth their while to read, although it might have been somewhat condensed, is also of some value. We think ourselves, distant as we are from the intrigues and ambitions of Europe, to be secure from any possibility of being drawn into those complications ; but they who have studied the policy and purposes and character of the Russian government, and have been brought into contact with her bureaucracy, have no doubts as to the reasons for Russia’s extreme friendliness for the United States. As one represents the most cruel despotism now existing, and the other the most free and intelligent liberalism, there can be no logical grounds for the friendly professions of Russia, nor are those professions sincere. They only form part of a profound and long-determined policy. In the event of the inevitable conflict which is bound to come between England and Russia, the latter hopes, by flattering our people, who are unsuspicious because they have no designs of their own, and are ignorant of the character of European ambitions, to secure either their alliance against England, or such an elastic neutrality as to permit Russia to buy ships and stores and refit her fleets in American waters. The friendship of America for Russia is genuine and sincere; that of Russia for America is selfish and politic.

In view of these facts, the temperate, judicial, and on the whole correct statement presented by Mr. Curzon about the designs of Russia in central Asia may be read with profit by all intelligent Americans. He writes without heat and with a clear grasp of the situation. That he should have prepared so complete a work as this on Persia is pretty good evidence of the great possible importance of that country in the councils of Europe. To those who would fully understand the events now transpiring there, and theirbearings in settling the map of Europe and determining the nature of the civilization in a large part of the Old World for ages to come, we heartily commend Mr. Curzon’s book.

The illustrations which accompany these pages are generally excellent so far as photogravures from photographs can be satisfactory. The outlines of a subject are true, but we feel the absence of a certain force and quality which can be imparted only by a powerful woodcut from a photograph, or by a photogravure from a spirited drawing.

It is to be regretted that in a serious work like this the author should permit himself to use the word “ fancy ” in its merely local sense, as when he says, “ But I fancy that its original author was Professor Grotefend.” He does not “ fancy ” at all; he either thinks or knows it to be so. The word “ nasty,” which is one of his favorite epithets, and in its true sense means dirty, and in any sense is not a very nice word, is also, as Mr. Curzon often employs it, out of place in this work.

The maps are abundant, and so far as we have examined them are correct and carefully engraved. The index, however, leaves something to be desired, and should be entirely recast if the work passes into another edition. A work of reference, such as this is intended to be, contains many names which are repeatedly mentioned. Simply to give the number of the pages often obliges the reader to turn to a dozen places, perhaps, before he finds the particular passage he seeks. A good index, therefore, contains with each individual reference a brief statement of the character of the passage indicated by a given number. This, however, is exactly what Mr. Curzon’s index does not do ; but, happily, it is a defect which can be easily remedied.