Difficulties in dealing with enquirers—Language—Argument—Parabolic
interpretation—Distrust of evidence—Ignorance—Attachment to
Islam as representing whole scheme of life—The problem of
converts—Industrial missions—Employment by missionaries—Helpful
points—Readiness for religious discussion—Quickness in
grasping single points—Yezdi wants distinctive and systematic
teaching—And a concrete example—Difficulties in accepting
converts—Tests.
From what has been previously said it will be understood that from the
missionary point of view there are, when dealing with the Persian,
certain peculiar difficulties, and also certain things which tend to
make missionary work more easy. We have to deal with a people whose
fundamental notions of God and of His dealings with men are absolutely
different from our own. I am not now so much speaking of those tenets on
which the Mussulman loves to dwell, but rather of those tenets of which
he does not think it necessary to speak, which are not so much the
objects of his faith, but rather indisputable facts which stand outside
the sphere of faith. The difficulty is not so much that the Persian
is repelled by our holding contrary ideas; he cannot believe that we
hold them; and indeed it is a serious difficulty that in accepting the
Persian language we often unconsciously admit the very Mussulman ideas
which we intend to attack, and give to the Persian premises upon which
he can build his whole argument. To give an illustration; a Persian
enquirer will say to the missionary, “Of course you allow that Moses
and David were prophets?” The missionary will probably admit this. Now
if the Persian has used the most ordinary term for such prophets, that
is, the term _paighambar_, he will naturally suppose that the missionary
has admitted the following: first of all, that God sends from time to
time men who are appointed by Him to reveal a new law of human action,
which, so far as the moral commandments are concerned, has no necessary
connection with previous revelation; secondly, that Moses and David gave
each of them a sufficient direction to the peoples of their day to enable
them to apprehend salvation. In all probability your Mussulman friend
will assume that you have granted even more; for instance, that Moses and
David were both of them commissioned to invite everyone they came across
to accept their religion; and I should be sorry to say that you would not
have been supposed to have made other still more impossible admissions.
I do not think that it would be possible to avoid this difficulty by
extreme scrupulosity in accepting terms. The result of such hesitation
would probably be to puzzle and perplex the sincere enquirer who was
genuinely anxious to find out what Christianity really meant. A more
possible way out of the difficulty is to take the first opportunity
of stating the difference between Mussulman and Christian belief upon
these subjects, and I shall perhaps be pardoned for suggesting that such
matters ought to be thoroughly thought out beforehand. There are a good
many terms that we use in the present day, such as “perpetuity of the
moral law,” and “continuity and growth of revelation,” which require very
careful analysis before they can be presented to minds which have not
been accustomed to the ideas they represent. I have previously compared
the mind of the Yezdi to a field-glass of very small range and high
power, and have pointed out that the man possessing such a glass sees
very clearly within a limited area. The Yezdi is utterly different from
the European. The latter looks for a generally consistent system, and,
knowing how difficult it is to get such a thing, he is content to find
certain points where the agreement has not been thoroughly worked out.
The typical Yezdi expects a much more clearly worked out conception of
that small number of points which are at one time presented to his range
of vision. But when he has turned his glasses in another direction the
first set of ideas is blotted out, and the second group as a whole may
be absolutely contradictory to the first, so long as it is consistent
in itself. The result is that he is absolutely untouched by criticism
which appears to the European crushing and final. Then the missionary
gets to regard him as an imbecile, and presents to him an idea which he
has not clearly thought out himself. The Persian turns the tables on
him in a moment, and frequently the missionary is greatly surprised.
The only way to meet this difficulty is both to prepare and select
your arguments carefully, and, generally speaking, you can never use
with the ordinary Shiah Mussulman an argument that contains more than
three steps. As to the difficulties of the language, some have been
previously mentioned, and to these must be added the entire absence of
words conveying certain important conceptions. Perhaps we are not quite
so badly off as the missionary to the Esquimaux, who has to explain our
Lord’s parables to people who know of hardly any domestic animals at
all, and who have never seen a tree; nor is the Persian so intensely
dull as the inhabitants of the Indian district where the mirzas declared
that the meaning of the “field to bury strangers in” could not possibly
be understood unless the strangers were described as dead; but to find
a people who are sufficiently advanced to have an elaborate system of
psychology, and yet have no term for conscience is a difficulty of almost
a new kind. Between this sort of deficiency on the one hand, and on the
other the impossibility of forming a sentence with an accurate meaning,
or of making the meaning understood when it is formed, the missionary is
sometimes inclined to wish the Persian language at the bottom of the sea.
A very similar difficulty is to be found in the absolute denial,
especially by the Babis, of any limitations to the use of parabolic
language. I can best explain this by instancing a very common Babi
argument, by which it is attempted to minimise the extraordinary nature
of Christ’s ministry, this being a preparatory step to the advancement of
the claims of Behāu’llah. Christ on one occasion said, “Let the dead bury
their dead.” In this text it is obvious that the word “dead” refers in
one case rather to spiritual than to physical death. Consequently, they
say, the miracles of raising the dead to life which are recounted in the
Gospels are not to be taken as referring to physical death either. The
obvious answer, that parabolic language, when used without any warning
and under circumstances that make it certain to be interpreted as literal
statement, is simply another name for falsehood, entirely fails to appeal
to the Persian mind, even though it is pointed out in addition that,
in the stories of the raising of the dead, local colour and special
circumstances are added in such a way that the details of the stories do
not admit of any intelligible allegoric interpretation.
In meeting this kind of position the difficulty is occasionally
increased by the Babi controversialist being aware that certain European
objectors hold a very similar opinion about our Lord’s ministry. I
think, however, that I am right in saying that no European critic has
ever attempted to take up what seems to us the impossible position of
accepting the absolute truth and inspiration of the New Testament, which
the Babi fully admits, while at the same time trying to explain away the
plain statements of the Gospels.
Another difficulty is that some, and those not always the least
intelligent, of the Yezdi enquirers mistrust absolutely all reported
evidence. This is after all only the logical result of life in a Persian
town. To say that a certain point, even the most elementary, such as
the fact of our Lord’s appearance in Palestine nineteen hundred years
ago, is a matter of history, or is universally acknowledged, means to
the Yezdi absolutely nothing. Sometimes, however, when you are able to
explain that historical criticism is not an impossibility in Europe, this
extreme scepticism partially subsides, particularly when you are able to
show that the demand for direct evidence is not altogether impossible to
satisfy.
Of course, too, there are difficulties in argument arising from the
intense ignorance of the Yezdi, and more particularly from his extremely
limited ideas of the size of the world. For instance, when he is
repeating the story that the text of the Bible was changed in the time
of Mohammed, the verses referring to the prophet being eliminated, it
is almost impossible to explain the enormous difficulty that would have
attended such a proceeding. This must of course be the case in other
places, but I venture to think that the peculiar nature of the Persian
desert towns makes this state of mind compatible with a greater degree of
intelligence than one would have believed possible.
When everything has been said, the strong attachment felt by the Yezdi
to Islam remains the greatest difficulty of all. It has been previously
shown that Islam is much more than a creed, and much more than a set
of commandments. Behind these things are a number of more or less
connected ideas upon the relations of God and man, which have not only
been accepted without question for generations, but are considered by
the Mussulman to be axiomatic and impossible to call in question. Also
around Islam there has grown up a system of domestic and social life
and of personal habit, which fills up every moment of the day. Habits of
personal cleanliness, the system of cooking food, the fashion of dress,
and the method of speech are all more or less connected with Islam. The
same thing is true of the more normal amusements of the Yezdi. There is
a certain amount of singing and playing which is in direct contravention
of Mohammedan law; but the things which in the life of the people take
the place of the concert-hall and of the theatre are the _ruza-khani_,
which is the recitation of religious poems by the Mohammedan mulla,
and the Muharram festival, which is entirely religious, being a
miracle-play depicting the martyrdom of the Imam Husain. Even the more
usual street shows, which are presented by story-telling dervishes, are
the property of a class possessing a peculiar religious status. Under
these circumstances who can wonder that to separate himself from Islam
without leaving the country seems to the enquirer almost impossible?
Further, he is inclined to say that, if it is possible, it is only to
be done by joining himself to the life of the Ferangi household. It is
very difficult to explain to the Mussulman that Christianity is not a
politico-religious system like Islam, but it is still more difficult to
make him understand that a certain amount of the Islamic system can in
any way remain lawful to him when he becomes a Christian.
The difficulty is really an enormous one. Men who would be ready to face
death, if death was in the air, are not always ready to face boycott
and petty persecution, their neighbours regarding them as unclean, and
their new co-religionists, though not refusing to associate with them,
having apparently no idea of providing them with a new home atmosphere.
Those, too, who are dependent on their professions or trades feel that as
Christians the friction with Islam will be so great that, even if they
are not treated as infidels and at once turned adrift, their seeking of
their livelihood will be a daily martyrdom, often extremely distressing
to their newly-awakened religious feelings.
All of the obvious solutions of this problem are almost as difficult as
the difficulty itself. First of all, it might be possible to create an
industrial mission, and to provide new employment and new circumstances
of life for the converts. Such a move would attract so much attention
in a town like Yezd that it might very possibly provoke a serious riot;
and, even if it did not do this, it would involve an enormous financial
loss. It would be impossible to get for such an enterprise the sympathy
of the Persian authorities. The undertaking would be attacked by a
continual succession of intrigues, and even without these disadvantages
it is doubtful whether Europeans who had to deal with Persians in matters
of trade without being primarily traders could possibly avoid bankruptcy
after a very short period. Besides this if any such plan was started, the
possibilities of the situation from the employé’s point of view would so
appeal to the Persian that numbers would come and profess conversion in
order to reap their share in the benefits. It cannot be too fully pointed
out that in Yezd the man who is not in earnest, and who is willing to
deny sincerity of motive, risks absolutely nothing, even though he may
consent to public or semi-public ceremonies.
Another solution of the difficulty is to employ converts in the
missionaries’ households, but after all this only provides for a certain
number, and those only of certain classes. If the less satisfactory
servants and employés were continually ousted to make room for converts,
a further very serious difficulty would be created, as there would be a
number of people in the town doing their best to stir up trouble. The
position is further complicated by the number of servants in a Persian
household being very much fewer than the usual number in an Indian one.
At the same time this solution of the difficulty, when it is possible,
is certainly the best one. Converts who are employed by Christians are
in South Persia a far from unsatisfactory class, particularly when they
have given up more remunerative work. When the converts are left too much
to fend for themselves the results are not always satisfactory, for even
when they pull through, a feeling of not having been properly treated
is sometimes left behind, which is not helpful to their Christian life.
Consequently, I feel that, at the present stage, converts should, when
possible, be drawn carefully into the organisation of the mission or the
mission households, which would also have the effect of increasing the
missionary staff. If it is due to our faith in Christ, as it most surely
is, to send out every European man or woman who comes forward for mission
work, and after prayerful and careful examination or training still
seems to be set apart for that work by God, surely in the Persian mission
under present circumstances we might receive as fellow-workers those who
after accepting the Gospel are thrown upon our hands by the same God.
Later on it may become possible to connect the Persian mission stations
with an industrial organisation at Bombay, or God may show some other
similar way out of the apparent _cul-de-sac_. But the whole difficulty
is so great, that perhaps it would be well to keep it in mind when we
are determining the organisation of missions, for some methods of work
tend to absorb natives of various classes, while others show no tendency
to do so. In spite of the immense difficulties in the way of regular
industrial missions, some Persian missionaries hold that they ought to
be started, under the charge of thoroughly competent men sent out for
the purpose. My personal opinion is that, if it was the main intention
that such work should lead to the formation of an industrial community of
converts earning their own living and paying their own expenses, there
would probably be a great deal of disappointment about the results.
If, however, such work was attempted it would have to be done in very
close conjunction with the strongest of the medical missions, and a
responsibility for backing it up would have to rest with the doctors
in charge. On the other hand, the establishment of industrial training
classes under competent teachers, not necessarily European, would not
be open to the same objections. It would really be a development of
school work, and the primary object would be the assistance of the native
population and the spreading of the Gospel message amongst them. Like
other branches of mission work it would be worked at as small a loss
as possible. But it would not be a settlement of the great difficulty,
though we might reasonably expect it to prove a step towards such a
settlement, for it would obviously put us in a position to consider
further steps as occasion offered. After all, missionary work is the
attempting of the impossible in dependence on the Almighty, and under
such circumstances to attempt to look too far ahead is absurd.
In the face of these difficulties it is really wonderful that missionary
work in Yezd should have gone so far forward. There are, of course,
certain elements in Yezdi character and ideas that have proved a
very great assistance to the missionary. Yezdis are always ready to
talk about religion, and they are thoroughly sociable. Then they are
always interested in new ideas, and are quick to adapt themselves to
circumstances. Further, the ordinary Shiah’s ideas about the Bible,
that is, the Law of Moses and the Gospel, are somewhat uncertain. He
generally regards it as the Word of God, for he does not consider that
the alterations which he believes to have been made in the text are
sufficient to rob the Book of its whole value. Altogether, his ideas are
much less stereotyped than those of the Sunni, and it is often possible
to convince him that the Book is correct throughout.
Then there is the extreme intelligence of the Shiah in grasping single
points. Some missionaries work upon this, and also on his essential
weakness, by teaching him Christian ideas, and not pointing out their
contradiction to those contained in Islam until he has had time to grasp
their value. I am inclined to think that although this method of teaching
may be possible with people who do not come primarily as enquirers, it
is not so suitable for the Yezdi who comes to you for discussion or
teaching on the Christian religion. If you want to gain a particular
point with a Persian, for instance if you wish to dissuade him from some
particular act of cruelty, do not use too long an argument, but put what
you want to say and your reasons for saying it as shortly as possible.
Even if he does not recognise your principle generally, he may very
possibly accept it for the particular occasion, if your argument is a
plain and short one; but when an enquirer after Christianity comes to
you, he comes to you as to a follower of Christ. He does not want your
advice about any particular part of his conduct; he wants to know why
you follow Christ rather than Mohammed. As a matter of fact you have to
teach him more, but the attempt to teach him less generally produces a
strange state of bewilderment, in which the man is not very likely to
obey any explicit direction you may have given him. The man wants, not
necessarily controversy, but teaching of a controversial nature, opposed
to Mohammedanism, that is to the doctrine of the supremacy of Mohammed’s
religion, and he generally wants such teaching to be based on some kind
of argument, and not on mere assertion. I think this last statement is
less true of the women. But in our early days at Yezd, when Dr White and
I were both struggling with the Persian language, and all of the teaching
had to be done by Armenian hospital assistants, who, although admirable
fellows, had perhaps not wholly grasped exactly what was wanted, we had
strong evidence of what I am now saying. For the moment I could speak the
language and began to see something of the people, man after man would
come to me, all with the same question, “We have heard a great deal; a
great deal of Christian teaching, and a great deal about Jesus Christ;
but Sahib, _matlab chīst?_” which may be translated, “What is the point
of it all?”
From what has been written it will be obvious that one of the most
essential points in dealing with Persian visitors is to understand
thoroughly who are enquirers and who are not. Those who are not primarily
enquirers may often be brought to Christianity almost as easily as those
who come as searchers after truth, for when you get to know Persians,
you can do much with them through personal influence, and indeed, when
all has been written about ways and methods, the thing most used of God
in Persia is the personality of particular missionaries. Curiously
enough, it is not always the popular personality by which the Persian is
most affected in big matters, but he is enormously affected by what we
call character. As to enquirers, it seems to me that no harm is done by
being very careful whom we accept as such. I must own that I have not
always worked on that principle, and there was a time when I was under
the impression that to refuse to see a visitor, or to keep him waiting
a quarter of an hour, would be to derogate from the importance of the
message that I had to give, and when I would plunge without hesitation
into the arguments for the Christian position with any one who asked me
to do so. Possibly at the time it was the best thing to do, for it was
not until I had pursued this plan that I gained any experience to enable
me to discriminate; but I should certainly hesitate to advise anybody
to follow my example. Unless a man professes some serious and practical
reason for wanting to know why he ought to become a Christian it is
not always advisable to tell him. Latterly, when I was approached on
the subject of Christianity, I always replied by asking the enquirer’s
reasons for searching, and also by asking of what he was in search, and,
if from his answer it was obvious that he was in search of something
which could be found outside Christianity, I always told him so. You
must remember that such a man naturally continues talking with you,
generally on religious subjects, and indeed you have then the opportunity
of explaining what Christianity really is, without the necessity of
controversially proving its truth. He is also just as likely to return
to your house as a man with whom you have entered into regular argument,
and I am quite convinced that he is not less likely to appreciate
Christianity at its true value than if you had allowed him to consider
that any one was a proper applicant for admission into the Christian
Church.
As a general rule, the thing which seems to me to succeed best with
Yezdi enquirers is controversial teaching of a systematic kind. Pure
controversy is sometimes necessary to remove particular objections to the
Gospel message, but it has to be followed by regular instruction. On the
other hand, instruction that does not bring out very clearly the contrast
between Islam and Christianity is liable not to be understood. Persian
enquirers seem as a rule to want help in understanding the meaning of
Scripture. Several Persian converts have been brought in through the
instrumentality of the Bible without the help of the missionary; but such
cases are not common.
Then one of the most important points that the missionary has to bear
in mind is that the Persian expects a concrete example of the Christian
life. He is much more able to understand what he sees than what he simply
reads, and he is anxious to know how the whole scheme works out, for he
wishes to understand how much of the practical teaching of Christianity
is really intended for everyday use. He is aware that in his own religion
a good deal can be explained away by the mulla, and also that rather
different conduct is expected from the clerical and non-clerical classes
respectively. It is true that in Islam this difference is not so great as
one would expect, but the Mussulman clerics as a class are certainly more
particular than the laity about prayers, fasts, and attendance at the
mosques. When a Persian sees the Christian colony entirely at variance
with the missionary households as to religious customs and ideas, he
naturally comes to the conclusion that as a Christian layman he will
have to conform much more to the practice of the laity than to the
practice of the clerical class, under which heading he will include all
missionaries. For this reason it seems to me that it is lamentable for
missionaries, clerical or otherwise, to separate themselves too much from
the social life of the European colony. Work in such towns as Yezd ought
to be primarily church extension, and when both missionaries and other
Europeans realise this fact, and do their best to show the native that
Christ is a real force in the concrete European life of the present day,
the hopefulness of mission prospects becomes increased a thousandfold.
But the task before the missionary is a rather more complex one, for his
duty is not only to present Christ as a living force in his everyday
life, but he ought also to try and avoid all conduct which he learns by
experience will seem to the native not to tally with the teaching of
Scripture. In other words, he must be ready to give up lawful things
which he is unable to justify to those whom he is striving to teach.
Such a determination will demand not only strength of purpose, but also
careful and prayerful Bible study; but unless the determination is made,
the work will inevitably suffer.
One unusually intelligent Behāī, who, I am glad to say, afterwards became
a Christian, once brought forward an objection to Christianity, which I
think is worth closely noting. He said, “You point to the comparative
prosperity of Europe as an evidence of the truth of Christianity. I,
who have been in India, do not doubt that Europeans have accomplished
something. But it seems to me that what has been done has been done by
the State organisation, which rests upon the law of retaliation, and
is therefore in direct opposition to the law of Christ. Consequently
these successes prove not the truth of Christianity, but rather the
power of work done on exactly opposite principles.” My answer, which was
accepted, was to point out that although Christ in the Sermon on the
Mount showed that the principle of retaliation was not to govern the
actions of individual Christians, Christ’s religion both as expounded by
Himself before Pilate, and as presented by His apostles in the Epistles,
recognises the power of the force-using governor as that of God’s
minister. I also pointed out that the best European State organisations
had only been made possible by the Church. However, the objection was
certainly one which a serious enquirer might be pardoned for advancing,
and it is interesting as showing the trend of the Persian’s mind when he
comes into contact with European customs and Christian ideas.
There remain several difficulties, connected rather with the acceptance
of converts than with the making of them. The Persian is exceedingly
impulsive, and a great many enquirers who are really in earnest ask to be
baptized without realising all that it will mean. This, I suppose, is a
difficulty one finds everywhere. A difficulty more peculiar to Persia has
already been mentioned in a previous chapter, namely, the feeling that
two motives are better than one, and that the desire for earthly as well
as spiritual gain only makes a man a more earnest applicant. In Yezd it
is impossible to treat people who have this feeling as radically unsound,
but of course they have to be taught that it is impossible to become a
Christian from the two points of view, and that if they intend to make
Christianity pay from the earthly point of view, they will lose the
spiritual benefit. The question may perhaps be asked, how is it that in
a Mohammedan country there can be supposed to be any temporal advantage
in becoming a Christian? The answer to this is that the Yezdi Persian
is accustomed not so much to religious as to politico-religious systems:
so he regards the whole European colony with their native servants,
Parsi and Mussulman, as all belonging to Christianity and under the
protection of the Christian authorities, and this idea is very largely
kept up by the servants themselves. Servants in a Christian household
will almost invariably join in any form of Christian worship, and it
would be impossible to explain to them that they did not to some extent
participate in the spiritual advantages of Christianity. They recognise,
however, a distinct difference between taking service and accepting
baptism. Probably in their heart of hearts they believe that taking
service is temporary, and accepting baptism permanent. Amongst people
who are accustomed to a view of the household largely corresponding to
the patriarchal view, such notions cannot be altogether eradicated. So
enquirers, when they first ask for baptism, do not necessarily see the
enormous danger, but only realise that they will be brought into close
touch with a community that seems to them to include other natives who
wear the same dress as themselves. Of course when the enquirers are
junior members of strict Mussulman households, or in other equally
unfavourable circumstances, they realise that their peril will be
extreme; but heads of households sometimes expect much less danger. Then
again, the Mussulman is accustomed to secret religions, for _taqiya_, the
denial of faith in times of danger, has always been considered lawful by
Shiahs, and it is used by the Babis. Although the enquirer learns at a
very early date that such conduct is regarded by the Christian as sin, it
takes him some time to realise the exact degree to which his Christianity
is likely to be public. Lastly, although he may be told that converts are
not under consular protection, in a country where law means so little and
custom so much he is not likely to understand how real are the boundaries
of treaty rights. This will perhaps give some idea of the amount of
misapprehension, both as to the meaning of Christianity and also as to
the danger of accepting it, which may possibly exist after a considerable
amount of talk and enquiry; nor would the dangers of embracing
Christianity be made altogether obvious by a single riot or martyrdom;
for the whole operation of Persian law, or want of law, is irregular and
spasmodic, and in a town like Yezd things which are foolhardy in January
are often attended with no more than ordinary risk in June.
Under these circumstances the question of the admission of professing
converts to baptism must necessarily be extremely difficult. In towns
where the mission work is in a pioneering stage it has to be primarily
settled by the European missionary; and not until the difficulty has
been by him sufficiently solved to admit of the foundation of a church,
can much of this burden be placed upon other shoulders. Sometimes he
may have the good fortune to have among his earlier converts a wholly
trustworthy man, who, from his greater experience of native character and
knowledge of what is going on in the town, can advise and counsel him,
but even then the main responsibility must rest with the European. The
difficulty is greatly enhanced by the fact that the missionary in Persia
does not really live amongst the people, and that the clerical missionary
usually sees enquirers only in his own house. Under these circumstances
it is perhaps well not to apply too many tests, for it is not easy to
get a test which is really sound. One test which is sometimes advocated
is the practice of keeping the catechumen waiting for a long period;
but the result of this is frequently to deter those who are weakly in
earnest, whereas a Persian who has a worldly end to serve is capable of
extraordinary patience. It is sometimes urged that an unsound convert
brings the whole band of native Christians and enquirers into extreme
danger; but I am inclined to think that, in the circumstances of our
pioneer missions as they at present exist, a totally unsound catechumen
may do almost as much harm as even an unsound convert. It is hard to
avoid the conclusion that the only way to deal with the situation is
to baptize all persons who after full instruction, not too hurriedly
given, profess conversion and demand baptism, and even after baptism
to observe a certain degree of caution towards the newly baptized. If
it is absolutely proved that such converts are behaving in a manner
that is not only weak but actively hostile towards Christ’s cause, they
must be excommunicated; but the most necessary point of all is that as
much attention should be paid to the instruction of converts as to the
instruction of catechumens. It is of course impossible to expect that
all points of character should be absolutely changed after baptism, and
nobody ought to be cut loose from the Church in a place like Yezd,
unless he is actively hostile; and, even when actual hostility has been
proved, an opportunity ought to be given for the man’s return.
As to the advisability of giving converts material help, a great deal may
be said against it in theory, but in practice it is at times absolutely
necessary. After all, it is impossible to avoid mistakes, and the attempt
to avoid all mistakes in detail is only too likely to lead to the more
general one of entirely failing to present Christ in any form whatsoever.
The conclusions which have been stated in this chapter are not intended
to be taken as the fully thought out summing up of an extremely complex
and difficult problem. They are the result of rather less than six
years’ experience of the mission-field. But just as there is a value in
first impressions of country, so there is a value in first impressions
of difficulties in work. At five and a half years first impressions of
country have passed away, and consequently the contents of the earlier
chapters of this book, which deal with country and surroundings, can
hardly be so characterised; but at this period the difficulties of
mission work are only just beginning to spread themselves out before
one’s eyes. So when we pass from country to character, from character to
opportunity, and from opportunity to suggestion, we pass from subjects
with which it is comparatively easy to become familiar to subjects which
need life-long and careful study. I have tried in writing this chapter
to eliminate from the style that consciousness of uncertainty which
is frequently so irritating to the reader; but in doing this I should
explain that I am fully conscious of the superficial nature of much
that I have written. At the same time, the view that I have gained of
mission work in Yezd is a full one compared with that which is possible
for people at a distance, and for that reason it may be considered worth
stating.
[Illustration: A VIEW OF YEZD.]