stated he had cause for complaint on this head.  We must bear in mind, however, that he was a hot hater of the Shah, and a thorough ‘irreconcilable.’  On quitting Persia he went to Constantinople, where he appeared to be allowed such free expression of disrespect to his Sovereign that the Shah addressed a remonstrance to the Sultan, who stated in reply that Jemal was leaving for some remote place to employ himself in literary work.

As a native of Hamadan, Jemal-ed-Din is a Persian subject; he is also of the Shiah faith, though it is believed that, in order to make things easy for himself, he passes as a Sunni where the State religion is of that creed.  He was well received by the Shah on his visit to Tehran in 1890 as a man of learning and letters, and it is said that he accepted and enjoyed his hospitality.  This, however, did not prevent him plotting against his royal host, and doing his utmost to compass the downfall of the Kajar dynasty.  He probably saw clearly during his stay in Persia then that the Shah’s authority rested too strongly in the minds of the people, by reason of his long and peaceful reign and mild rule, to give any hope of a successful revolution during his lifetime.  And it may have been in this connection that recourse was had to assassination.

Jemal-ed-Din is credited among Orientals with a powerful energy and will in working on the enthusiasm of others, and establishing a moral despotism over them.  His disciple, Mohamed Reza, appears to have resembled his teacher in reckless disregard of kindness, and determination to render evil for good.  In him a willing hand was apparently found to carry out the first part of Jemal-ed-Din’s programme for the reformation of Persia, but the possibility of madness in the act of murder was not foreseen.  For the horror of the crime has been so intensified from being committed in the holy shrine of the sainted Shah Abdul Azim, that its object must be defeated in the most complete manner, and the reaction will result in stronger attachment to the throne of the Kajars.

Jemal-ed-Din held a brief for the union of Sunni and Shiah, an idea which from time to time has found favour with some advanced leaders of the former faith.  He spoke of the gain to Islam in sinking their religious differences, and joining to form one Church and one creed.  He was said to be very earnest on this point, and he succeeded in planting his opinions in Persia, as shown by the subject being still occasionally discussed.  But the idea is entirely of foreign growth, and is generally introduced by enthusiasts like Jemal-ed-Din, who have exchanged their Persian national pride of Church and State for the ambition to see Islam ruling as one power from Constantinople to Pekin.  These visionaries fail to see what thoughtful Persian politicians and Churchmen know well, that the Shiah schism has preserved Persia as a nation, for without it the incentive to popular cohesion would long ago have ceased.