Annotated Copy of Persia and the Persian Question by George Curzon, with Inserted Papers [‎68r] (142/1814)

3
(c&S
y f Vare th at
^ ^a s
lalI > and con.
anufacturin
ation and ail
Ea st. Ev eil
onscions that
3 market f 0r
mercenary
uler is in the
£ the general
and of the
not wanting
ns that there
si gns of the
"thing ridicu-
probably de-
T hom nothing
s many and
it imperfectly
struse states-
gation to be
INTRO DUCTOKY 3
1875, soon after the Shah’s first visit to Europe, left on record this •
opinion :—
( I do not think our reception of the Shah has produced at all a
good impression. The Persians know that we are anxious about the
Russians, and they look on it as a purely political matter ; and, while
the enthusiastic reception their Shah met with in London adds much
to his importance in their eyes, it has not in any way improved our
position. The idea, I think, is that we are very anxious for Persia to
be on our side when the struggle with Russia comes, and that we will
pay extravagantly for her assistance. This I cannot help regarding as
a great pity.’
I shall endeavour to ascertain whether such an impression still
exists among the subjects of the Shah, or how far their training in the
rudiments of politics has progressed in the last sixteen years. In fine,
Persia, from an Englishman’s point of view, and from the point of view
more particularly of an English politician, will be the subject of my
communications. Long residents in the country usually undertake,
and are incomparably better qualified for, the task of describing local
customs and manners, of which a traveller can form but a hasty and
imperfect judgment. But a political problem may fairly be consigned
to interested hands, and can be so committed with the greater safety
if an honest endeavour is made, as will be in this case, to regard it,
with the con-
hat I propose
r es in Persia
si an problem,
stake in that
;ard its policy
meaning and
y it is so im
3 indifference,
rrative will, I
policy of the
vices of the
in 2 from the
cession to the
ie opening f 01
he people, the
3reat Britain,
ig and sigidfi'
er to British
f the Shah’s
y in Pers> a 115
not from any narrow or selfish, but from an Imperial standpoint, and
in its due relation to the broader question of Asiatic politics as a
whole, of which it constitutes no unimportant part.
In the above paragraphs is indicated with sufficient precision
the political aspect of this work. I need not conceal the fact that
its relation in the elucidation of that aspect that personally I
Indian am inosfc con cerned, and that I would sooner be the
Empire author of a political treatise that commended itself to the
well-informed than of a book of travel that caught the ephemeral
taste of the public. Nor do I make this admission merely because
success if attained in the one department may have some perma
nence, while in the opposite case it can scarcely be other than
fugitive, but because, in the contemplation of the kingdoms and
principalities of Central Asia, no question, to my mind, is com
parable in importance with the part which they are likely to play or
are capable of playing in the future destinies of the East. Turkestan,
Afghanistan, Transcaspia, Persia—to many these names breathe
only a sense of utter remoteness or a memory of strange vicissi
tudes and of moribund romance. To me, I confess, they are the
pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game
B 2
i.