CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION

vi. The press

There are no statistics on literacy in Qajar Persia, but it can be conjectured that the literate population was very small. Until the beginning of the Pahlavi era there were people who could “read” the Qurʾān and prayer books, for teaching in religious schools consisted of memorizing koranic passages. Few women could read, and even those few often did not know how to write. Literacy in the full sense was confined to a small minority, comprised mainly of the aristocracy and clergy; the title mīrzā (< amīrzāda “nobly born”) before a name came to imply knowledge of reading and writing. The number of newspaper readers in the time of Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah (1264-1313/1848-96) is reasonably well documented: There were four government-sponsored newspapers, with a total of 1,100 “subscribers.” Court officers, governors, government agents, aristocrats, and local leaders were required to subscribe to these papers; those who were delinquent in paying for their subscriptions forfeited equal amounts from their government stipends. Other people were allowed to subscribe and receive the newspapers if they wished to do so (Waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqīya 51, 30 Rabīʿ I 1268/23 January 1852; Ṣadr Hāšemī, Jarāʾed o majallāt I, p. 5).

On the eve of the Constitutional Revolution

The government press contained little to attract the attention or interest of the public other than some domestic and international news, but in the second half of Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah’s reign some members of the Persian aristocracy subscribed to and read Aḵtar, which was published in Istanbul, and Qānūn, published in London by Mīrzā Malkom Khan. By the beginning of Moẓaffar-al-Dīn Shah’s reign (1313-24/1896-1907) the circulation of Persian-language newspapers printed abroad had increased, especially that of Ḥabl al-matīn, which was published in Calcutta. Ḥājī Zayn-al-ʿĀbedīn Taqīof, a philanthropic merchant in Baku, paid for 500 subscriptions of the paper to be sent directly to the Islamic clergy in Najaf (Browne, Press and Poetry, p. 25; Kasrawī, Mašrūṭa³, p. 42; cf. Ṣadr Hāšemī, Jarāʾed o majallāt II, p. 201). According to Moḥammad Ṣadr Hāšemī, the print run of Ḥabl al-matīn reached 35,000 copies shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, but this figure is probably ten times too high. When the Constitution was proclaimed in 1324/1906 there were already a number of newspapers being published in Persia, some of which had been established in the time of Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah. Of those published in Tehran some were government publications (Īrān-e solṭānī, Eṭṭelāʿ, Šāhanšāhī); others, because of restrictions on political commentary, were limited primarily to ethical and literary topics (Tarbīat, Adab), religious subjects (Majmūʿa-ye aḵlāq), or technical matters (Falāḥat-e moẓaffarī). There were also provincial newspapers in Tabrīz (Kamāl, al-Ḥadīd) and Būšehr (Moẓaffarī, Ṭolūʿ). They were normally lithographed in print runs of about 500. Domestic news consisted mainly of official notices from the imperial court. A license was required to publish a newspaper legally, and usually it required the shah’s personal signature. Furthermore, the censorship office kept a close watch on all details of publication (Tārīḵ-e bīdārī, ed. Saʿīdī Sīrjānī, I, pp. 431-32). Nevertheless, around the beginning of the 20th century the editors of Adab, Ṭolūʿ, Tarbīat, Moẓaffarī, and several other organs made great efforts to awaken the Persian population politically by including translations of news and articles from foreign publications, which gradually began to have some influence. Noteworthy examples were Majd-al-Eslām Kermānī’s “Majles-e mabʿūṯān” (Assembly of delegates; Adab 160, 164; Tārīḵ-e bīdārī, ed. Saʿīdī Sīrjānī, I, p. 429) and articles translated from foreign newspapers by Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Forūḡī and published in Tarbīat. Generally, however, the rare articles about social reform that did appear in the Persian domestic press were written in such a veiled manner, filled with hints and allusions, that very few readers understood what the authors were driving at.

It was Persian-language newspapers published abroad, beyond the reach of court censors, that laid the foundations for the constitutional movement in Persia. Apart from Qānūn, Ḥabl al-matīn, and Aḵtar, there was also Parvareš, published in Cairo. Because the government usually prohibited importation of these newspapers into Persia (Ruz-nāma-ye rasmī 990, 10 Ḏu’l-qaʿda, 1318/1 March 1901), their direct influence was confined to the educated class and hardly touched the majority of the population. In addition, Turkish-language newspapers printed in the Caucasus had helped to disseminate new thinking and to encourage agitation for freedom, particularly in Azarbaijan. They included Eršād, Tāza ḥayāt, and Mollā Naṣr-al-Dīn; the last was particularly influential, for in it editorial opinion was clothed in verse and easily understood humorous anecdotes (Kasrawī, Mašrūṭa³, p. 194).

During the protest over the Tobacco Régie (q.v.) in 1309-10/1891-92 underground writings began to circulate in Persia, and the use of this medium gradually increased, becoming quite common toward the end of Moẓaffar-al-Dīn Shah’s reign, particularly during the administration of the antireform vizier ʿAyn-al-Dawla (Tārīḵ-e bīdārī, ed. Saʿīdī Sīrjānī, I, p. 46; Kohan, I, p. 141). Examples included Lesān al-ḡayb, issued by the Tehran secret society Anjoman-e serrī (Kohan, I, p. 220), and the mimeographed Ṣobḥ-nāma, also distributed in Tehran, both of them in clandestine circulation when the Constitution was proclaimed (Kohan, II, p. 22; Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 133).

Under Moẓaffar-al-Din Shah reformers had succeeded in establishing schools based on modernist ideas, and some of the principals sought permission to produce publications that would make them known and encourage parents and guardians to enroll their children. This trend began in Tabrīz, where Kamāl, Nāṣerī, ʿAdālat, Maʿrefat, and Parvareš were issued in this guise; similarly, in Tehran Mīrzā Ḥasan Rošdīya published Maktab, Nāẓem-al-Eslām Kermānī published Nowrūz, and Anjoman-e maʿāref published Maʿāref (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 103).

Nevertheless, before the proclamation of the Constitution neither Persian-language newspapers published abroad nor domestic newspapers issued by the government or schools were effective in molding general public opinion, for the literate audience was small and people were not in the habit of reading newspapers, especially as the articles contained little useful or interesting information (Ādamīyat, pp. 386-87). In addition, some religious leaders considered such reading to be inadvisable or even sinful.

Among the statesmen of Moẓaffar-al-Dīn Shah’s reign only Amīn al-Dawla (q.v.) was prepared to admit foreign publications into the country; ʿAyn-al-Dawla and Atābak-e Aʿẓam Amīn-al-Solṭān strongly objected to these publications, however, and even to some extremely conservative and quasi-governmental domestic newspapers. ʿAyn-al-Dawla banned such nonpolitical publications as Adab, Nowrūz, and Moẓaffarī and ordered editors like Rošdīya, Mīrzā Ṣādeq Adīb-al-Mamālek, and Majd-al-Eslām Kermānī arrested and exiled (Tārīḵ-e bīdārī, ed. Saʿīdī Sīrjānī, I, pp. 427-31, II, p. 83; Ẓahīr-al-Dawla, p. 63; Ṣadr Hāšemī, Jarāʾed o majallāt I, p. 13; Majd-al-Eslām, p. 185).

During the years before the adoption of the Constitution the most effective means of molding public opinion was sermons in the mosques and at religious gatherings, for most of the population was accustomed to accepting the pronouncements of clerics as authoritative; any eloquent speaker could persuade hundreds of listeners to support justice and freedom and, by playing on their emotions, either incite them to rebellion and self-sacrifice or the opposite. It was in this way that reformist clerics like Sayyed Jamāl-al-Dīn Wāʿeẓ Eṣfahānī and Ḥājj Mīrzā Naṣr-Allāh Malek-al-Motakallemīn gained influence. Ideas could also be disseminated through public recitation of humorous verses about contemporary conditions, usually composed by obscure poets; such verses quickly became commonplaces even among children in the streets and marketplaces (Mostawfī, Šarḥ-e zendagānī I, p. 263). Finally, the mimeographed leaflets and underground publications, which were distributed free of charge, and telegraphic communications helped to keep people abreast of events.

Under the Constitution

Owing partly to the effect of the basts in the shrine of Shah ʿAbd-al-ʿAẓīm and the British embassy in Tehran (see ii, above) and partly to the influence of sermons by the progressive clergy, Persians in general had become more politically conscious by the time that the Constitution was adopted at the end of 1906. The press was also evolving to meet new conditions. The censorship system gradually collapsed, and perhaps for the first time in the history of Persia everyone was free to publish; a large number of individuals began to issue newspapers. In the first two years or so after adoption of the Constitution more than 150 newspapers and many more anonymous publications appeared (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, pp. 108, 129). On the other hand, familiar and uninspiring governmental and quasi-governmental newspapers lost their readers, to such an extent that Forūḡī ceased to publish the moderate Tarbīat in 1325/1907 (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 181; Tarbīat, p. 434).

Early exercise of freedom. The new editors were driven by a variety of motives: to promote social change, to win personal prominence, or to pursue vendettas. Among them was the fourteen-year-old Sayyed Żīāʾ-al-Dīn Ṭabāṭabāʾī, who published Nedā-ye Eslām (Ṣadr Hāšemī, Jarāʾed o majallāt IV, p. 281). He claimed to serve as an orthodox religious guide in the political life of the nation. In fact, many newspaper editors in this initial period were semiliterate mullas, who had turned to journalism. As they were often unaware of the gulf between constitutional government and the authority of religious law, their writings were filled with contradictions. One of them claimed, for example, that “the government of Persia has been entirely constitutional since the time of Kayūmart” (Majles 1/65), another that “God has created man in the image of the constitution” (Tadayyon 3/11), and another that “most of the laws that seem new are religiously prescribed ordinances and ancient customs of this country; for example, the art of caricature is borrowed from our own Kalīla wa Demna and Alfīya Šalfīya (Naqš-e jahān 1, 23 Šawwāl 1325/29 November 1907, p. 1). Many newspapers were filled with spiritual rhetoric and poorly written love poems, prompting the president of the newly elected Majles, Saʿd-al-Dawla, to express the wish that such material might give way to articles that would acquaint the population with the constitutional arrangements, the power of the Majles, and the system of government (Majles 3/73).

In Isfahan Mīrzā Nūr-al-Dīn Majlesī, the editor of Faraj-e baʿd az šaddat, in an inaugural article, named more than twenty newspapers of the period from the establishment of the Majles to the end of 1324 (early 1907); about half of them published in Tabrīz, a third in Tehran, two in Isfahan, and one in Mašhad (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 129); for 1325/1907 he counted seventy-two: forty-eight in Tehran, eight in Isfahan, seven in Rašt, three in Hamadān, and one each in Mašhad, Yazd, Shiraz, Kermānšāh, Urmia, and Anzalī (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, pp. 133-34). E. G. Browne considered the year 1325/1907 to be the crest of the wave for the Persian press, noting that eighty-four newspapers were published in that year (Press and Poetry, p. 161; see appendix, below). Most of these newspapers appeared in only one or two issues; by the end of 1325 (early 1908) the number of functioning newspapers in Tehran was down to about twenty, and there were approximately the same number of provincial newspapers (Nedā-ye waṭan 2/1, Ḏu’l-ḥejja 1325/5 January 1908, p. 2). Nevertheless, the editor of Čehranemā, a newspaper printed in Cairo, composed a poem incorporating the names of about eighty newspapers published in Persia in the year 1326/1908 (Čehranemā 5/1). Many of them were amateurishly written and edited, with meandering articles filled with contradictions and complaints about despotic oppression. It is clear that the readership and influence of many of these newspapers were limited to the editors’ families and acquaintances; many lasted no longer than a few weeks or a few issues—sometimes only one issue.

Most of the professional journalists of this period can be divided into two categories, radical reformers and moderates. The former were admirers of Western civilization and strongly opposed the power of the court and the unlimited influence of the clergy on the population, whom they considered an obstacle to reform. They can be classified generally as social democrats who had adopted the slogan “liberty, equality, fraternity” (ḥorīyat, barābarī, barādarī). They claimed to support Islam in its struggle against superstition and outworn notions (Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl 7-8, pp. 45). The nucleus of this group of journalists was drawn from Azarbaijan, for as Turkish speakers they were familiar with Caucasian newspapers (see above) and thus in closer contact with the outside world. Their writings were focused on religious despotism, challenging it in the guise of propagating modern sciences and combating superstition. Before the Constitutional Revolution they had normally circulated their views in underground publications.

The more moderate journalists included those who sought both a constitution and a parliament, on one hand, yet hoped to preserve the authority of Shiʿite law and tradition, on the other. Members of this group had little influence and few readers during the first two years of the constitutional period. The first newspaper to appear openly after the proclamation of the Constitution was Rūz-nāma-ye mellī (later called Anjoman), which appeared in Tabrīz on 1 Ramażān 1324/19 October 1906 (Ṣadr Hāšemī, Jarāʾed o majallāt I, p. 286); like the most successful newspapers in the capital, Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl, Mosāwāt, and Rūḥ al-qodos, it represented the reformist point of view.

The absence of laws regulating the press and especially widespread enthusiasm for freedom combined with inexperience produced a climate in which intemperate and defamatory writers flourished. Newspapers like Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl, Mosāwāt, and Rūḥ al-qodos were strongly opposed to Moḥammad-ʿAlī Shah (1324-27/1907-09). He was relentlessly attacked in their articles, and there was a clear attempt to take advantage of his unpopularity and exacerbate discord between him and the Majles. As these newspapers were supported by Sayyed Ḥasan Taqīzāda, it is conceivable that he personally encouraged, perhaps even instigated, their attacks on the court (see Taqīzāda’s speech in the Majles, 2 Šawwāl 1325/8 November 1907; Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 117). Some newspapers attacked the clergy with equal vigor and inveighed against religious elements who opposed reformist notions like civil equality for all citizens, the right of the people to influence legislation, the founding of modern schools, education of women, and freedom of publication.

The most intemperate publication was Rūḥ al-qodos, which was filled with denunciations of ranking court officers and representatives to the Majles (12). In one article the shah was compared with Louis XVI of France and threatened with death (13, 28 Ramażān 1325/5 November 1907; cf. Kasrawi, Mašrūṭa³, pp. 571-72, where a similar article is said to have been published in Mosāwāt). In others ʿAbbās Āqā, the murderer of Amīn-al-Solṭān, was declared to be on a par with the venerated Shiʿite imam ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭāleb (9); attacks on moderate journalists were mounted (14, 11 Šawwāl 1325/17 November 1907); and court procedures were mocked. The shah filed a complaint against the paper, and the editors responded by demanding that he be summoned to be heard before a court of law.

Mosāwāt was also outspoken in its attacks on the shah (Maḡīṯ-al-Salṭana, p. 197); for example in an article with the headline “Šāh dar če ḥāl ast?” (How is the shah doing?), the certainty of his defeat in his struggle with the nation was stressed (Mosāwāt 21, p. 5). In still another issue the honor of his mother was impugned. The shah was furious and initiated a lawsuit by one of the princes; it was settled through the mediation of the respected prince ʿAżod-al-Molk (q.v.; Dawlatābādī, Ḥayāt-e Yaḥyā II, p. 225-27; Kasrawī, Mašrūṭa³, p. 572).

Attempts at control. The constitutional government in Tehran attempted at first to counter attacks in the press by persuading journalists to adopt a more moderate stance. In the first incident the editor of Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl, Mīrzā Jahāngīr Khan Šīrāzī, was summoned to the office of the minister of education, Moḵbar-al-Salṭana Hedāyat, to discuss articles that had appeared in the first issue (17 Rabīʿ II 1325/30 May 1907); a courteous meeting took place, according to a report in the second issue. A month later, apparently because of attacks on the Islamic clergy, including accusations that some had taken bribes to ensure dissolution of the Majles and particularly that Shaikh Fażl-Allāh, the leading cleric of Tehran, had received 45,000 tomans from Moḵtār-al-Dawla and the Russian bank (5, 15 Jomādā I 1325/26 June 1907, pp. 1-4), the paper was banned for two months (after publication of 6, 22 Jomādā I 1325/3 July 1907). In the lead article of the first issue after the ban was lifted, apparently written by Taqīzāda (Dehḵodā, I, p. 395), and in several other articles a new defensive tactic was apparent: distinguishing between religion and worldly, demogogic mullas.

The second newspaper banned was the Tehran Ḥabl al-matīn, ostensibly because it had printed the announcement of a lottery—forbidden by Islamic law—but more likely because of attacks on Russian interference in Persian politics and the granting of asylum to Ḥājj Moḥammad-Kāẓem Malek-al-Tojjār in the Russian embassy (70, 6 Jomādā II 1325/17 June 1907; 73, 10 Jomādā II 1325/23 June 1907). The apparent influence of the Russian government in having this ban imposed caused a great stir. All newspaper editors—even the editor of Majles, which printed the legislative proceedings—went on strike; as a gesture of solidarity they gathered in the offices of Ḥabl al-matīn and swore not to publish until the ban on the paper was lifted. The next day the printers in Tehran joined the strike (Ḥabl al-matīn 79, 21 Jomādā II 1325/1 August 1907). Sayyed Jamāl-al-Dīn Eṣfahānī, Malek-al-Motakallemīn, and other reformist preachers made rousing speeches, and the telegraph brought news of protests in every part of the country. Matters reached such a pitch that Moḵbar-al-Salṭana, in an address to the Majles (17 Jomādā II 1325/28 July 1907), called the ban an act of oppression; a week later it was rescinded.

Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl was soon in trouble again, owing to direct attacks on the obscurantism of the Islamic clergy and their opposition to reform. The editor argued that, as people are born free, they are entitled to lead their lives as they wish and that “the only request to be made of any religious or secular leader is that from now on it is not necessary for them to lead us toward future perfection by using force and coercion, but to allow us to choose individually, with absolute discretion, the nature of our lives for ourselves” (12-14). This argument was in sharp but subtle contrast to the views of many devout Muslims who believed that the Qurʾān had provided for every aspect of human life and that deviation from religious law according to individual preference was not permissible (2, pp. 1-2). There was considerable commotion in theological colleges and among the clergy, and, although in the lead article of the next issue (no. 13) the author expressly attempted to assuage some of the opposition, the question “Did mankind fourteen centuries ago reach the limits of wisdom, and was truth completely revealed to him?” only increased the fury of the clergy; further explanation and clarification in the next issue (14) did not placate them, and the newspaper was banned for a month and a half.

The second ban on Ḥabl al-matīn was also imposed in the name of religious law, at the specific request of the society Anjoman-e Āl-e Moḥammad, which introduced a bill to this effect in the Majles. On 14 Ramażān 1325/21 October 1907 the deputy Ḥājī Sayyed Naṣr-Allāh declared, “We have convened this Majles in the name of the religious law,” indicating his unhappiness with the views expressed in Ḥabl al-matīn; on 19 Ramażān/26 October there were several appeals to the Majles to lift the ban.

On 29 Ramażān/5 November a lead article in Rūḥ al-qodos (13) led to its being banned and the trial of its publisher. Before conclusion of the trial the shah was persuaded by a petition from ʿAżod-al-Molk to issue a royal pardon and lift the ban. The transcript of the trial was printed when the newspaper resumed publication (14, 27 Ḏu’l-qaʿda 1325/1 January 1908, p. 3).

In December Ḥabl al-matīn was banned for a third time, having published detailed reports about the events in Tūp-ḵāna square (see ii, above) and the bastinadoing of Nāṣer-al-Molk at court (189 and 190, 19 and 20 Ḏu’l-qaʿda 1325/24 and 25 December 1907).

In the provinces the measures adopted by officials were often more severe. The governor of Rašt ordered the editor of Ḵayr al-kalām, Abu’l-Qāsem Afṣaḥ-al-Motakallemīn, beaten and imprisoned and forbade even the reading of the Majles proceedings (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 177; Taqīzāda, p. 50); Sayyed Aḥmad Dehkordī, the editor of Nāma-ye ḥaqīqat, was so afraid of the authorities that he is said to have established his press in the hills (Ṣadr Hāšemī, Jarāʾed o majallāt IV, p. 270).

Growing influence of the press. The influence of the press on the Majles gradually increased (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 118), and many people took to reading newspapers in preference to attending prayer meetings (Fażl-Allāh Nūrī, p. 330). Illiterate people and those who could not afford to buy newspapers gathered in coffeehouses to hear the articles read aloud (Tārīḵ-e bīdārī, ed. Saʿīdī Sīrjānī, II, p. 122). The phrase “the sacred press,” frequently repeated by constitutionalist preachers like Sayyed Jamāl-al-Dīn and Malek-al-Motakallemīn, caused some people to consider that buying and reading newspapers like Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl and Ḥabl al-matīn were meritorious acts that would be spiritually rewarded. ʿAlī-Akbar Dehḵodā told the story of one old man who came to pay for his subscription to Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl; as it was difficult for him to climb stairs, someone offered to take his money up and to bring him the receipt, but he declined, asking what would become of the spiritual reward he would gain by climbing the stairs (Ḡ.-ʿA. Raʿdī Āḏarakšī, personal communication).

From such episodes it became clear to the court that in the unstable conditions of the period banning newspapers was often inflammatory. Attempts by court officials to influence groups supporting the Constitution (Tārīḵ-e bīdārī, ed. Saʿīdī Sīrjānī, II, pp. 83, 109) and to win over moderate members of the Majles had achieved some success. Nevertheless, aware of the growing influence of newspapers and incensed at attacks on the shah, they also adopted two other approaches. First, they attempted to discredit the press by forging underground newspapers and handbills in the names of known reform groups, presenting “information” that representatives in the Majles and others eager for constitutional reform were Babis, materialists, and atheists seeking freedom to flout all religious law; this strategy was soon exposed, however (Ḥabl al-matīn 2/18; Kohan II, pp. 55, 307, 467; Nedā-ye waṭan 246; Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl 5, p. 3). The second strategy was to encourage organs of anticonstitutionalist opinion. Most of the new newspapers, whether revolutionary or moderate, favored political freedom and supported constitutional reform. The shah’s supporters in Tabrīz encouraged Mīrzā Aḥmad Baṣīrat to publish newspapers with the same names as the respected Etteḥād (edited by Moḥammad-ʿAlī Tarbīat) and Eslāmīya (edited by Mīrzā Abu’l-Qāsem Żīāʾ-al-ʿOlamāʾ) and also the Turkish-language Āy Mollā ʿAmū (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 131; Kohan, II, pp. 69, 313). In Tehran the editors of Ādamīyat, Hedāyat, and Qājārīya were won over (Kohan, II, p. 109), but only eleven issues of Ādamīyat, four of Hedāyat, and one of Qājārīya appeared, which suggests that their editorial views were unpopular. Another loyalist newspaper, first issued on the shah’s birthday in 1326/1908, was Oqīānūs (see Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 118); its editors’ attempts to win popular support were unsuccessful, and people refused to accept copies that paperboys brought to their houses (Oqīānūs 6, 22 Jomādā I 1326/21 June 1908). The most successful anticonstitutional publications were, in fact, those issued by Shaikh Fażl-Allāh Nūrī in 1325/1907 from sanctuary in the shrine of Shah ʿAbd-al-ʿAẓīm, which were known collectively as Rūz-nāma-ye Šayḵ Fażl-Allāh (Shaikh Fażl-Allah’s newspaper; Kasrawī, Mašrūṭa³, pp. 409-23; Ṣadr Hāšemī, Jarāʾed o majallāt II, pp. 332-33).

Conservative reaction. The reforming intellectuals’ direct confrontation of traditional ideas was certain to provoke a reaction from the traditional clergy, among whom the most important and influential thinkers were Shaikh Fażl-Allāh Nūrī and Sayyed Kāẓem Yazdī. In fact, the episodes of suppression of newspapers frequently arose from religious disputes, for even political articles usually involved religious topics, counseling, for example, against the blind following of religious authority, attacking outmoded customs, and promoting social measures like land reform and workers’ rights that were inconsistent with Islamic legal doctrine on ownership and contracts (Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl, passim). The deputies in the First Majles, with very few exceptions, had no conception of the principles of constitutional government or the problem of reconciling constitutional and religious law. On this point the reformist religious leader Sayyed Moḥammad Ṭabāṭabāʾī could not support the social democrats and pronounced unequivocally: “With the founding of this parliament we are taking the bread from our own mouths.” Furthermore, Shiʿite religious leaders in the shrine city of Najaf, in Iraq, could support the constitutional movement only to the extent that the Majles refrained from measures that might undermine the authority of religious law. One contemporary complained that in the Majles “the clergy insist on the execution of the [secular] law and on holding sessions of the Majles, but I cannot understand how the clergy might insist on the execution of [such] law” (Maḡīṯ-al-Salṭana, p. 121).

In response to increasing press opposition to religious authority Shaikh Fażl-Allāh labeled supporters of constitutional reforms atheists, Bahais, Mazdakites, and apostates, sometimes simultaneously (Kasrawī, Mašrūṭa³, p. 417; see conspiracy theories). During the time he was in bast he prohibited the reading of newspapers and declared journalists to be heretics (Fażl-Allāh Nūrī, p. 330). His followers seized the opportunity presented by the demonstrations in Tūp-ḵāna square to tear down advertisements for newspapers and attack their offices (Ṣadr Hāšemī, Jarāʾed o majallāt II, p. 336). Furthermore, conservative clerics pressed Moḥammad-ʿAli Shah to ask the Majles to send the editors of Mosāwāt, Rūḥ al-qodos, and Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl into exile (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 118).

In this atmosphere some journalists and newspaper editors felt obliged, from fear of influential mullas and popular disturbances, to compromise; for example, the magazine Tīātr (Theater), which published the texts of plays, carried in its first issue the disclaimer “The production of plays involves music and is in contradiction to religious law, and, as we are Muslims, thanks be to God, we consider it to be eternally prohibited” (Tīātr 1/1, 4 Rabīʿ I 1326/6 April 1908, p. 2). Even the veteran journalist Majd-al-Eslām Kermānī, in a leading article in the comic paper Kaškūl (5, 27 Rabīʿ I 1325/10 May 1907), expressed longing for an exceptional personality to take the country in hand.

In the end the conflicts between unrestrained journalists, on one side, and the government, elected representatives, and the conservative Shiʿite clergy, on the other, led in the autumn and winter of 1307-08 to extended debates in the Majles on a press law, which was passed on 5 Moḥarram 1326/10 February 1908. It was more libertarian than any subsequent press law in Persia, but at the time the most extreme reformers and journalists had hoped for more. Sayyed Moḥammad-Reżā Šīrāzī, the outspoken editor of Mosāwāt, produced a special issue (19, 3 Rabīʿ I 1326/7 February 1908), in which he praised the authorities in the manner of the court-controlled newspapers under Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah, implying that the new law represented a return to the former repressive conditions.

Economics of newspaper publishing. Even after the adoption of the Constitution, with greater freedom of the press and politicization of the population, most newspapers were printed in no more than 500 copies, partly owing to limitations of the predominant lithographic process (Moḥīṭ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, p. 66). Normally only about 500 clear copies can be printed from each stone; in runs of 700-800 the later copies are blurred and often illegible. The extant copies of most newspapers from the years 1324-25/1907-08 now in public and private collections in Tehran are all clear and legible, suggesting that the print runs seldom surpassed 500 copies. It was difficult to sell even that many, and publishers often could not meet expenses from sales. The costliest items in the budgets were printing and paper; salaries for journalists and other employees were low (Tīātr 5, p. 2).

Newspapers printed from lead type, particularly those with a wide readership, like Majles, Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl, Ḥabl al-matīn, Mosāwāt, and Ṣobḥ-e ṣādeq, were in a less precarious position (Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl 15, p. 7). According to Browne, the print run for Majles was 7,000-10,000 (cf. Mostawfī, Šarḥ-e zendagānī II, p. 249: 24,000), that for Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl about 5,500, and that for Mosāwāt 3,000 (Press and Poetry, p. 25). The common format in this period was usually a half-sheet about 35 x 22.5 cm, with four, occasionally eight, two-column pages.

Judging by its print runs, Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl was one of the most popular, perhaps the most popular, newspaper of the time. Its success was chiefly owing to Dehḵodā’s caustic and satirical column “Čarand parand”; without indulging in the invective and personal attacks characteristic of Rūḥ al-qodos and Mosāwāt, Dehḵodā was able to deflate the court and the conservative clergy with his lively wit. The rest of the eight pages of Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl were generally filled with six or seven varied and serious articles, in contrast to most newspapers, which were entirely filled with the editors’ lead articles. Furthermore, the controversy generated by the repeated banning of the paper also benefited its circulation.

Ḥabl al-matīn and Ṣobḥ-e ṣādeq also provided varied and well-written articles. Mosāwāt and Rūḥ al-qodos attracted readers with their attacks on the court, and Nedā-ye waṭan carried popular cartoons, but none could match the popularity of Dehḵodā’s column.

Only a few newspapers, including Ḥabl al-matīn, Ṣūr-e Esrāfīl, Mosāwāt, Ṣobḥ-e ṣādeq, and Nedā-ye waṭan, were written in simple, clear prose. Most journalists of this period were poorly educated mullas, who considered simple prose vulgar and preferred to indulge in poetic and rhetorical flourishes. The editor of Baladīya-ye Eṣfahān wrote his first lead article in the style of the introduction to Saʿdī’s Golestān. The masthead of al-Janāb included an abstruse passage, and the lead article of the first issue was a prayer filled with erroneous Arabic expressions (1, 20 Šawwāl 1324/9 December 1906, p. 1). Although the editor of Eṣfahān wrote that “the common people must read newspapers,” adding that the age of ornate and pompous prose was over, he himself used tedious chains of synonyms and unnecessary rhetorical tropes (1, p. 1). Most of the journalists of the period wrote in an arabicized style, reflecting their religious training, based on the Qurʾān and Arabic textbooks like Jāmʿ al-moqaddamāt. Even when writing in Persian they would often, from force of habit, place the verb at the beginning of the sentence, as in Arabic.