Missionary Treaty and Unequal Treaty
( 1842- 1860)
The relationship between missionary work and unequal treaties has always been taboo in China. Because it involves not only sensitive political factors, but also many complicated theological issues, such as the relationship between politics and religion and the evaluation of missionary history, it is difficult to teach people to discuss it calmly. However, if we jump out of the Christian circle a little, we will find that it is really difficult to escape this problem and it is difficult to downplay it. From a historical point of view, in the past century, China people have made similar accusations against Christianity. For example, Christianity was a tool for imperialism to invade China, and missionaries were pioneers in invading China. Of course, this historical phenomenon cannot be explained only by the misunderstanding and prejudice of Chinese people. From a realistic point of view, such historical accusations still exist in the field of history to a considerable extent, not only in the field of history in China; Their views are at least partly based on facts. Therefore, even if we resist accepting or even understanding these attacks on Christianity emotionally, we still have to face them, at least we need to understand their causes.
/kloc-When Christianity was introduced to China in the 20th century, China was facing unprecedented great changes. With the advantages of industrial and scientific revolution, western imperialist countries have exploded the door of China with overwhelming force. In the face of aggression, China was forced to make concessions again and again, and since treaty of nanking, it has continuously concluded unequal treaties with western countries; It is not a problem to transfer land with compensation or lose rights. More importantly, as a country, her sovereignty and independence have been seriously threatened. It is conceivable that the people of China have a strong sense of humiliation and national subjugation crisis.
Only by recognizing the background of the introduction and development of Christianity can we understand the xenophobia of China people. Why are anti-Christian incidents emerging one after another, so that China people's unreasonable treatment of Christianity will not become unreasonable. If we put aside the modern history of China and look at the situation of the church in isolation, we will never get in touch with the real picture.
The relationship between missionary work and the conclusion of unequal treaties
For us, an extremely important issue is that when western powers force China to sign it.
When many unequal treaties were made, what did they have to do with missionaries and missionaries?
What about the department?
First of all, missionaries participated in the formulation of the treaty.
Last class mentioned that missionaries were forced to work in foreign institutions in China in order to obtain legal residence status in China. These institutions include the semi-political and semi-commercial East Indian Company, and the official diplomatic and commercial representatives of foreign countries in China. Because they were almost the only foreigners who knew Chinese in the early days, they engaged in language-related work in these institutions, such as translation and secretarial work. Once foreign governments take any military action against China, these missionaries will be sent to the battlefield to participate in the role of intelligence gathering and translation with the army. After the invading army occupied parts of China, they were naturally elected as civil servants in the occupied areas. In the process of successfully concluding a treaty in the war, missionaries also heard about it in advance and acted as translators.
These different levels of participation are very common. For example, Ma Lixun has successively served as Chinese translator for the East India Company and British Commercial Supervision in China, and ambassador to China; G. Lay was the translation secretary of pottihger, the British representative who participated in the negotiation of treaty of nanking, and was later appointed as the first British consul in Guangzhou. In addition, there are Elijah Coleman Bridgman, Samuel Wells Williams and Parker. And there are countless pieces.
Lift it. Or we can use Guo as a more detailed example. He served as an interpreter and intelligence officer of the British army when it invaded China in 1840. When Britain occupied Dinghai, he was appointed as the civil administrator of the occupied area to manage it. In BC 184 1 year, when the British captured Ningbo, they served as civil servants in Ningbo. 1842 and then transferred to Zhenjiang civil affairs officer. When treaty of nanking was signed, Guo was one of the English translators.
Second, missionaries participate in foreign affairs and future Sino-foreign negotiations.
Since the treaty of nanking was signed, Britain and other subsequent countries have been granted the right to be ambassadors to China, so they sent a brief envoy to China. In the early days, only missionaries were familiar with Chinese and knew a little about China society and culture. Therefore, many of them volunteered or were invited to jump ship and become their ambassadors to China. For example, after the Opium War, Parker stopped being a missionary and turned to diplomatic work. 1845 to 1855 served as the first counsellor of the us embassy in China. Later, he was assisted as a plenipotentiary. Samuel Wells Williams also resigned from the church on 1856 and became the first counsellor and translator of the US Embassy in China. Later, he signed the Tianjin Treaty with China. As of 1876, he has represented for 7 times.
Missionaries were appointed as envoys in China by their home countries, which caused many adverse effects. If we agree that western powers invaded China in the19th century and signed an unequal treaty with China. It is not easy to thoroughly clean up the suspected invasion of China by missionaries who participated in these activities. Before 1842 BC, when missionaries had not obtained legal residency in China, their participation could be regarded as a last resort; However, after 1842, it cannot be said that their participation is their free will, not their helplessness. More complicated, when two completely different identities, a missionary and a diplomat, are concentrated on the same person, what he said.
Words and deeds are naturally confusing, and it is difficult to distinguish what identity he uses to say these words and do these things. For example, after being transferred as a diplomat, Parker urged the US government to step up its aggression against China and the Yangtze River. He also suggested that the United States should occupy Taiwan Province Province to coerce China into gaining more power. It is hard for a China historian to believe that his statement has nothing to do with his previous missionary experience in China.
Missionaries turned to be diplomats not only in the early 9th century, but also in the 20th century. For example, J.L. Si Tuleideng, the last American ambassador to China before 1949 BC, turned out to be a missionary and a writer.
President yenching university.
Third, most missionaries affirmed the practice of foreign powers invading China by force.
As mentioned earlier, early missionaries were forced to participate in the opium trade indirectly in order to obtain the status of legally residing in China. Because of their embarrassing status, most of these missionaries kept silent about the opium trade and refused to comment. But on the whole, missionaries mostly opposed China people to smoke opium; Especially China believers or missionaries who take opium will be excommunicated once they are found. /kloc-After the end of the 9th century, many missionaries and missionaries from China joined the anti-smoking movement. Therefore, we can generally think that the missionary's negative position on opium is quite clear.
However, the missionaries' denial of opium has nothing to do with their views on the Opium War. Judging from the information currently available, the vast majority of missionaries are completely sure of this war. They believed that the Opium War was a war between Christian countries and antichrists. Moreover, the whole war happened because China people were ignorant, arrogant and resisted the gospel. So the war shows God's sovereignty in China. They regarded the British invasion of China as the fulfillment of God's will. Such remarks are very common.
Missionaries mostly ignored the position of opium in the Opium War. This is mainly because there was no postal service, communication and passenger transport between China and Europe and America at that time, and the only connection between the two places was the merchant ships (mainly opium trade) that Europe and America traded in China; Therefore, if missionaries offend opium dealers, they will be at a considerable disadvantage. A missionary of the American Congregation pointed out in a letter to his own missionary group that he didn't want to comment on the opium issue, otherwise it would bring unfortunate consequences. He cited another doctor, J. Macgowan, who preached in Ningbo as an example. Because Dr. McGowan expressed some views on opium, he was convicted by opium addicts in Britain. As a result, they refused to serialize any letters and help to Dr. McGowan, so he couldn't, so he had to return to China in a daze. In addition, I regret to point out that among the early supporters of missionary work in China, a small number were opium addicts. For example, in BC 1849, when Dr. J. Hershberger, the director of the hospital run by the Hong Kong Medical Missionary Society, resigned, he explained to his London Society that he could not stand working in a group that accommodated opium addicts. This shows the complexity of the problem.
However, it must be fair to point out that missionaries in China were only a very small group in the middle of the19th century, and they could not play any role in the political situation at that time. We shouldn't expect them to change Britain's policy towards China. It is difficult for a person living in a certain era to surpass the common ideas of others in that era, and it is also difficult for an Englishman or an American in the19th century to see clearly what his motherland has done to China from a far-sighted perspective. Every time, every nation has blind spots, and I'm afraid we are no exception. As mentioned earlier, the contributions made by missionaries and China missionaries in the anti-smoking movement at the end of19th century cannot be arbitrarily denied.
Fourth, the relationship between unequal treaties and missionary work.
/kloc-in the 20th century, China signed many unequal treaties under the coercion of foreign powers. In these treaties, missionaries' rights and interests were listed as one of the reparations for ceding land and became a part of China's rights lost to foreign powers.
Why is missionary work related to unequal treaties? This goes back to what we mentioned in the first lecture. Since Yongzheng, the China government banned the spread of Catholicism in China, and all missionaries were deported except a few who worked in the imperial court. If China people believe in Catholicism, they will also be put to death. Naturally, these bans will also take effect for Christians who come to China in the future. It is impossible to carry out missionary work legally under such a strict ban. Although illegal missionary activities continue, they always bring great danger and inconvenience. Therefore, if evangelical seeds want to spread and grow freely in the land of China, they must wait for the China government to lift the ban and preach. ask
The question is, without any benefits, how can the China government lift the ban on missionary work? Especially as a nation that respects traditional family laws, laws promulgated by ancestors cannot be deleted or abandoned at will. Since the China government will not give up automatically, the remaining way is to force her to give up; When Fang was in power, the powers that invaded China were the only ones that could be found.
In this way, we see such a dilemma: when missionaries come to China, their greatest goal is to spread the gospel to the people, and they are even willing to bet their fame and even their lives on this goal; However, they are faced with a situation where they cannot preach the gospel. Missionaries not only need to preach, but also believe that this is the greatest need of China people, so how to reverse the whole situation of being unable to preach has become their dream concern. Therefore, they naturally demanded that the rights and interests of free missionary should be attached to the unequal treaty signed between their government and China. This is both inevitable and quite helpless.
No matter how we evaluate the relationship between missionaries and unequal treaties, we must admit that missionaries are not people who can have sex, and their influence on the political stage of the host country is extremely limited. Western powers invaded China, never for the purpose of opening missionary workshops (even the French are no exception), but for the sake of trade interests. What is certain is that even if there is no missionary problem, the imperialist countries still have sufficient reasons to invade China. Therefore, the provisions for the protection of missionaries are only additional provisions when they signed various charters with China.
But the problem is, as China people, if we regard these treaties as unequal treaties in which the powers bully China by force, and there are provisions on freedom of missionary work in the treaties, it will inevitably put the church in a rather embarrassing position, and it will also entangle missionary work with imperialist aggression against China. This is a historical dilemma.
Missionary interests in unequal treaties
/kloc-There are many unequal treaties signed between China and the great powers in the 20th century, so it is impossible to describe them one by one. Here is only a brief introduction to missionary work. The relationship between missionary work and unequal treaties can be roughly divided into two parts; One is indirect influence, that is to say, the content of the treaty has nothing to do with missionary work, but it indirectly provides certain convenience for missionary work; The second is direct contact, that is, the content of the treaty is directly aimed at missionary work.
The first unequal treaty signed between China and foreign countries was the treaty of nanking in BC 1842. In the treaty, China allowed five ports, including Guangzhou, to be opened to foreign businessmen to trade in China. In the Charter for the Rehabilitation signed by China and Britain after the treaty of nanking, foreigners were officially granted the right to freely enter and leave and stay in five open trade ports, so missionaries, as foreigners, could naturally stay in China legally without fear of being expelled again. Five-port trade brought great convenience to missionary work. In addition, in the articles of association for dealing with the aftermath, China gave Britain the benefit of consular jurisdiction, so that missionaries, like other foreigners, enjoyed the privilege of not being under the jurisdiction of China's judicial system.
One year after the signing of the treaty of nanking, China and Britain signed the Humen Treaty. China allowed the British to build houses and live within the agreed boundary of five people, which became the predecessor of the Concession. In addition, China granted Britain MFN status. In other words, if China signs any treaty with other countries and gives each other any benefits, Britain can automatically share them. The so-called benefit sharing. Later, in order to expand the missionary work of Catholicism in China, France put forward various requirements for opening up missionary work in China, which were quoted by Britain and the United States and were welcomed by Protestants. All of the above are indirect effects.
1844, China signed the Wang Xia Treaty and the Huangpu Treaty with the United States and France respectively. In this treaty, the government of China allows foreigners to build houses, schools, hospitals and churches within five agreed borders. This obviously points directly to missionary work, because apart from missionaries' missionary reasons, what foreigners want to run schools, hospitals and churches in China?
During this period, the British and French consuls actively requested the China government to lift the ban on missionary work and religious belief during the reign of Gan Yong. However, since the government of China prohibits its citizens from believing in foreign religions as a purely internal affair, neither Britain nor France has the right to include them in international treaties. As a result, under foreign pressure, Catholicism was officially banned in China on February 1845, and foreigners were exempted from punishment (Christianity also benefited automatically). At the urging of the French, the government of China promised to return the Catholic Church confiscated during Kang Yong's reign on February 20th. 1846. This permission will bring endless disasters in the future, increase the anti-Christian sentiment of Chinese people, and even Christianity will be implicated, which we will discuss in detail later.
In BC 1858, after the British and French allied forces captured Tianjin, China signed the Treaty of Tianjin with Britain, France, the United States and Russia. China has completely opened its territory, allowing foreigners to travel around, which means that all obstacles to missionary work have been removed, and the whole country can allow missionaries to preach freely. In addition, the Tianjin Treaty stipulates that the China government has the responsibility to protect missionaries and China believers from unfair treatment. The conclusion of this clause was due to the fact that many missionaries were attacked by China people in China at that time, and the China government did not give them enough protection; China believers are often discriminated against and persecuted because they believe in foreign religions, so countries such as Britain and France feel compelled by treaties.
China government changed this unfavorable situation. However, the Treaty for the Protection of Missionaries led missionaries and foreign consuls to interfere in China's judicial proceedings at will, which led to many disasters and conflicts. More importantly, China believers are included in the scope of protection of unequal treaties, which means that once China people convert to Christianity, they will no longer be ordinary China subjects, but become international treaties, and even the protection class of foreign consuls and warships represented behind the treaties. No wonder many people in China thought that if there were one more Christian, there would be one less China.
Because the China government reneged on its word and refused to recognize the validity of the Tianjin Treaty, the British and French allied forces invaded and captured Beijing again. China resumed signing the Beijing Treaty with Britain, France and Russia. The content of the Beijing Treaty is roughly similar to that of the Tianjin Treaty. The only thing worth mentioning is that in the Sino-French Beijing Treaty, due to the unauthorized tampering by a French missionary named Dramare, the Chinese version of the Sino-French Beijing Treaty has an additional clause that the French version does not have, that is, missionaries are allowed to rent and buy fields and build their own houses in various provinces. It can be considered that this item was not originally requested by the French representative, but was illegally added by Catholic missionaries for the convenience of preaching in China in the future. Because people in China at that time didn't know French, there was no way to compare them. Although it was discovered later, it has been used for decades, and it is too late to pursue it. In any case, because of this illegal clause, missionaries can buy land and houses anywhere in China except five people, and build churches and various facilities for missionary use.
After BC 1860, missionary work and various related activities and constructions have become legal acts under the protection of unequal treaties. In the short term, this move undoubtedly opened up a missionary workshop in China, removed all kinds of official obstacles that hindered missionary work, and really opened the door to the gospel. But in the long run, if missionary is bound by unequal treaties and protected by political forces, the disasters and hatred will be countless. It has reserved a very bad soil for the future growth of the church in China. Christianity has always given China people the impression that foreign religions are attached to it, and it is impossible for it to be grafted into China culture. More unfortunately, it left infinity.
The excuse made China people misunderstand and accused Christianity of being a tool of imperialist aggression against China. From the end of 19 to the end of the 20th century, these crimes still existed among China people and historians.
Christianity is a tool of imperialist aggression against China?
After analyzing the relationship between missionary work and unequal treaties from four aspects, we further discuss the authenticity of accusing Christianity of being a tool of imperialist aggression against China.
Although this accusation has a long history and widely exists in different periods; But up to now, apart from some modern history scholars, it is mainly from the point of view of mainland historians. Mainland historians have their own specific modes to explain the missionary history, such as "occupation" when missionaries rent and buy fields, "spying on information" when they preach, and so on. Since these specific words have definitely been used, there is no need to refute them. As for their accusations against missionaries, they can be roughly divided into five points:
1. Missionaries collect information, which contributes to the aggression of their home country.
Second, missionaries participated in military activities.
Third, missionaries participated in the conclusion of unequal treaties.
Fourth, missionaries carried out cultural aggression.
5. Missionaries often turn to the consul of their home country to maintain their missionary activities with political power.
These five pieces of evidence synthesize their attack that "Christianity is a tool of imperialist aggression against China". Let's try to answer two of them.
Did missionaries conduct intelligence gathering activities to help the motherland invade China? This is divided into two aspects. On the one hand, it is an indisputable fact that if a missionary is employed by the invading army to become an intelligence officer during the war, his main duty is naturally to collect intelligence. But during this time, he was an intelligence officer in the army, not a missionary. He didn't collect information as a missionary, so we can't say that the activities of collecting information are directly related to missionary work. On the other hand, if this accusation generally means that in ordinary days, missionaries write articles, publish publications, discuss and introduce various situations about China (such as the China knowledge base mentioned above), which is also an intelligence gathering work, it is absolutely absurd accusation. In fact, early missionaries were eager to know the truth of China society and culture just for the convenience of preaching, and they needed to know who to preach the gospel to. Their publication aims to preserve the research results, introduce them to Christians in China, and attract more successors to devote themselves to missionary work in China. These materials can be used as a reference for invading China (no one dares to rule out all illogical fallacies), but they are not the original motivation for missionaries to explore and compile these materials. The author should not be responsible for how readers use his works. So the first accusation is unfounded.
As for the second and third points, missionaries participated in military activities and signed treaties, which have been mentioned in detail before, so there is no need to repeat them here. We only emphasize one point: the role played by missionaries in the process of imperialist aggression against China and the conclusion of unequal treaties is actually not great, mainly in language translation; They are not indispensable people. Missionaries did not play any role in the policy-making and planning stage of British and American countries' invasion of China, so missionaries are by no means the reason and purpose of imperialism's invasion of China. The political stance and choice of individual missionaries should not constitute the whole "missionaries are pioneers of imperialist aggression against China", which has nothing to do with "Christianity" being a tool of imperialist aggression against China. Because their political stance is by no means from Christian belief, but the product of the western expansionist era in the19th century.
It is not easy to deal with whether missionaries have committed cultural aggression, mainly because the word "cultural aggression" is really vague and it is difficult to determine its meaning. How can we draw a clear line between promoting cultural exchange and cultural aggression? Perhaps the only judgment is whether China people are willing to accept these newly imported cultures and whether there is any compulsion in the whole process of cultural input. We can say with certainty that under this standard, there is no reason to show that missionaries are carrying out cultural aggression. The westernization reform advocated by missionaries in the late Qing Dynasty included publishing, running schools and even contacting with the literati in China. There is no power from the big country behind; Moreover, their activities and remarks were widely welcomed by scholars with reform ideas and played a certain role in the westernization reform at that time; This can only be said to be a contribution to China's modernization and has nothing to do with cultural aggression. It is also far-fetched to say whether the missionary's ideas of running a school and advocating reform spread the ideas of "worshipping Britain" and "worshiping the United States" at the same time, reducing the vigilance of Chinese people against imperialist aggression. Missionaries, based on wishful thinking, think that their home country is friendly to China, so they advocate Sino-foreign cooperation and international friendship, and even put forward some things that are outrageous to China people, such as handing over China to Britain, but this is only out of ignorance and is by no means directed by others; And as a personal opinion, it will not have any impact on foreign policy at all. So we can oppose these views as much as possible, but we can't infer that it is related to aggression. Others (mainly modern neo-Confucianists) think that China has its own religion, and it is unnecessary to import foreign religions while westernizing, thus challenging the dominant or monopoly position of Confucianism. This is just another copy of the theory of "Chinese style and western use", which is not worth refuting at all. In short, in modern history, missionaries played an important role in importing western culture, helping China to westernize and promoting cultural exchanges. They are by no means cultural invaders.
The fifth accusation, because it involves some complicated backgrounds, can't be explained and discussed in detail until the fifth lecture.
After roughly understanding the true situation of these allegations (although we can't explain them); Some unfortunate and helpless facts that have happened; However, we still have sufficient reasons to point out that even though there are some facts, such as missionaries' participation in signing unequal treaties, the accusation that "Christianity is a tool for imperialism to invade China" is untenable.
Remarks affirming the value of aggression against China
However, since the19th century, missionaries' affirmation of military aggression against China and unequal treaties can bring some reflections to the missionary work of today's church.
Missionaries are in favor of the armed invasion of China by western powers and threaten to sign unequal treaties, although they hold different reasons; But it can be roughly summarized as the following four points:
The first (and most important) reason is that missionary work faces great obstacles in China, which cannot be removed without political power; Moreover, the obstacles to missionary work were arranged by the China government, and the responsibility was naturally borne by her?
The second view is that the China government is unreasonable and it is meaningless to negotiate with the people of China. The only way to keep her promise is to subdue her by force. (This view is not necessarily all wrong. As a member of the Chinese nation, it is difficult to objectively comment on whether China people bully the good and fear the evil, and whether they have the spirit of Ah Q written by Lu Xun. However, one thing is certain. Because China's view of political power is different from that of the West, in modern history, the charter drafted by representatives sent by the central government in negotiations with western powers was often overthrown rashly by the emperor, and even the negotiators themselves often came to no good end. This repeated attitude has angered the West, so China people really don't keep their promises and bully the good and fear the evil. )
The third holds that the unequal treaties signed by the great powers and China are actually in line with the principles of international law. Western countries in China only demand respect for human rights, equal diplomacy, reasonable accommodation and protection of citizens and other natural rights. These requirements are reasonable.
The fourth is based on theological reasons. Because there was a dual cultural view in the west in the 19th century; They divide the world into Christianity and paganism: European and American countries are Christian countries, their western culture is Christian culture, and all western cultures are pagans, which is very common (especially during the Westernization Movement in the United States). Therefore, most missionaries took a rather discriminatory and negative attitude towards China, and even compared China to the forces of Satan. Why not use force against Satan?
There are also theological reasons: the whole armed aggression was planned by God, and God tested China with war; God can turn bad things into good things, just as the Chaldeans' invasion of Israel can make them reflect on their beliefs. If unequal treaties can make China people give up their arrogance and accept the gospel with an open mind, it will be of great benefit to them; It has also been pointed out that the suffering of the war can make China people reflect on their beliefs. The war has not yet started, and it is useless to suffer again.
For the above reasons, at least let us think about three important missionary themes:
One is the purpose and means. Can good ends be achieved by bad means? Undoubtedly, in the Bible and history, we all see that God uses natural and man-made disasters to make people repent and return, or have a deeper understanding of faith; But do people have the right to do the same thing, or regard themselves as the embodiment of God and make disastrous judgments and reminders on their behalf? Even if an evil thing (such as invading China) can bring a good purpose (converting to China), can it rationalize the evil thing and even turn it into a good thing, so that the evildoer can be excused?
Especially in the Ministry of evangelism, we often emphasize the truth that it is right to obey God instead of people. There is no doubt that this is a lesson in the Bible. No authority but God can stop us from spreading the gospel. The first object of our obedience is God. But what is "obedience to God"? Are all forms and ways of evangelizing obedient to God? Can the good purpose of evangelism rationalize all "extra-legal" acts (some people say that evangelism that violates government laws is in line with the laws of a higher god, so it is not called "illegal" here)? Are there boundaries (such as whether violence and violation of people's free will should not be allowed)? while
What happened when Peter said this sentence? To what extent does this statement apply? These are all topics worthy of our consideration.
The second is fatalism. Since the ninth century, double fatalism has been a controversial issue in the history of the church. Finally, besides God's predestination for the righteous, are sinners also doomed by God? If this problem is further promoted, it will become the goodness in the world, of course, provided by God's grace, but the disasters and sins in the world are not only directly caused by human beings, but also caused by human sins that violate God's preset laws of nature. Could it be that God deliberately harmed people? All-good God can do temporary evil for the ultimate good, but it is quite dangerous for Christians to rashly blame God for "temporary evil" (for example, cancer and AIDS are God's judgments). I have heard people point out that imperialist aggression against China was used by God to open the door to the gospel. It seems that the imperialist invasion of China was arranged by God himself. There is no doubt that nothing will happen unless god allows it; However, God's non-intervention and tolerance of some evil deeds according to human evil deeds or natural laws is not the same as God's deliberate promotion!
The third is the relationship between faith and culture. Is Christianity completely attached to western culture? How should a Christian view foreign pagan cultures? If foreign culture and Christianity are not harmonious or even conflict, what kind of evaluation angle can we have? This is an important discussion topic in propaganda teaching. It is gratifying that the idea of simply dividing the world into Christian culture and pagan culture has been basically abandoned.
In addition to these three topics, the relationship between the church and the state, God's plan and people's responsibility (especially if there is a time difference), and the opportunity of Christianity entering China at such a sensitive period for the future development of the church in China can be discussed in depth.
Many problems have been raised above, so we can't deal with them one by one here. This does not mean that they can't find the answer, nor does it mean that the author tries to hide his personal views; It's just that they are extremely complicated and cover a wide range of topics, which can't be explained clearly in a few words at all. If you refuse to accept simple answers, you can only leave them for further discussion later.
/view/ 15 1449.html