1. ḥaqīqat-i ṣūba Bihār (Persian MS.). Soon after 1765, when the English East India Company acquired revenue-collecting rights in Bengal, Company officials launched inquiries into the origin of land tenure rights in Bengal and Bihar. One of several documents that emerged from those inquiries, this manuscript was cataloged under the title Kaifīyat-i ṣūba Bihār in Wilhelm Pertsch, Handschriften-Verzeichniss der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin: A. Asher, 1888), Persische Handschriften, No. 500, 4: 484. From the old Royal Library in Berlin, it was subsequently shifted to the University of Marburg Library. It is summarized, and extracts from it translated, by S. Nurul Hasan in his “Three Studies of Zamindari System,” in Medieval India—A Miscellany, vol. 1 (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1969), 237–38.

2. Jadunath Sarkar, “The Revenue Regulations of Aurangzeb,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, n.s., 2, no. 6 (June 1906): 234–35. Sarkar’s translation.

3. A study of rural Comilla District, in the southeastern delta, found that until the mid nineteenth century, the people in that district were still nomadic in nature and, “land being available, [they] could exercise free choice in selecting and reselecting habitation.” S. A. Qadir, Village Dhanishwar: Three Generations of Man-Land Adjustment in an East Pakistan Village (Comilla: Pakistan Academy for Rural Development, 1960), 46.

4. The same is true of madrasas, or schools. Although remnants of a few stone or brick schools of the sultanate period survive today, schools made of humbler materials have perished altogether. For example, in 1609 a traveler passing through Bagha, in modern Rajshahi District, recorded seeing a madrasa with grass-thatched roofs and mud-plastered walls. Inside, a host of pupils studied under a certain Hawadha Mian, a teacher of that locale. The government had granted the revenues of the countryside surrounding Bagha for the maintenance of the shaikh and his college. Today the structure no longer stands, however, and it was evidently not endowed with a foundation tablet and dedicatory inscription that would testify to its former existence. See Jadunath Sarkar, “A Description of North Bengal in 1609 A.D.,” Bengal Past and Present 35 (1928): 144.

5. “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” Chittagong District Collectorate Record Room, No. 64: bundle 78, case no. 5027; No. 7: bundle 62, case no. 4005.

6. Peter J. Bertocci, “Elusive Villages: Social Structure and Community Organization in Rural East Pakistan” (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, 1970), 11–14.

7. Betsy Hartmann and James Boyce, A Quiet Violence: A View from a Bangladesh Village (London: Zed Press, 1983), 17.

8. O. H.K. Spate and A. T.A. Learnmonth, India and Pakistan: A General and Regional Geography, 3d ed. (London: Methuen, 1967), 590. See the map of typical Bengali settlement patterns on p. 580.

9. E. A. Gait, “The Muhammadans of Bengal,” in Census of India, 1901, vol. 6, The Lower Provinces of Bengal and Their Feudatories, pt. 1, “Report” (Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press, 1902), 441.

10. Eric Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries (New York: Norton, 1959), 32. Similarly, in Morocco’s Atlas Mountains, lineages of charismatic saints have developed networks of patronage and influence among local pastoral tribes. See Ernest Gellner, Saints of the Atlas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), chs. 3–5.

11. Ralph W. Nicholas, “Vaisnavism and Islam in Rural Bengal,” in Bengal: Regional Identity, ed. David Kopf (East Lansing: Asian Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1969), 44.

12. Ibid. For observations on this point so far as concerns western Comilla District in modern Bangladesh, see Robert Glasse, “La Société musulmane dans le Pakistan rural de l’est,” Etudes rurales 22–24 (1968): 202–4. Here, religious and non-religious authority appear to be divided between the mullā and a leader known as a mātabbar. The latter, who owes his position to his force of character and social prestige, resolves disputes, levies fines for petty infractions, and represents the group vis-à-vis the outside world.

13. The latter occurs as a result of natural population growth. According to John Thorp, when the effective jamā‘at reaches around five hundred, it is ready for a split, since any number over that is too cumbersome for effective group action. At this point, two samājes might emerge, though members of both would remain members of the same jamā‘at and the same mosque. In the region studied by Thorp, the total jamā‘at community was composed of two samājes, making up some eighty households, or approximately six hundred people. But this larger group prayed together only in celebration of the ‘Id holiday. On ordinary Fridays, only some 10 to 20 percent of the jamā‘at community actually came to the mosque and prayed together. John Thorp, personal communication, May 13, 1985.

14. See Hartmann and Boyce, Quiet Violence, 11.

15. Karnaketan Sen, “Notes on Rural Customs of Dinajpur District,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 3 (1937), 38. Emphasis mine.

16. Because the towns of Sylhet and Chittagong are located on prominent hills, the District Collectorate buildings there stand high and dry, and their records are remarkably well preserved. Lower-lying districts, subject to the destructive floods that are endemic in the delta, have not been so fortunate in this respect.

17. See Nani Gopal Majumdar, Inscriptions of Bengal, vol. 3 (Rajshahi: Varendra Research Society, 1929), 158–63.

18. For the history of Chittagong’s changing masters in this period—Gaur, Tripura, and Arakan—see M. A. Rahim, “Chittagong under the Pathan Rule in Bengal,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 18, no. 1 (1952): 21–30, and Suniti Bhushan Qanungo, “Chittagong during the Afghan Rule, 1538–1580,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh 21, no 2 (1976): 54–75.

19. Independent of Burmese authority since 1433, the kings of Arakan, although Buddhist, absorbed a good deal of Muslim influence from the Bengal sultanate: they styled themselves “sultan,” they issued medallions bearing the Muslim confession of faith, and they adopted Muslim names alongside their Buddhist names. They lived not so much from the land as from the sea, engaging especially in raiding the Bengal delta for slaves. In this activity, which eventually provoked the Mughal invasion and annexation of Chittagong in 1666, the Arakanese were often joined by renegade Portuguese adventurers and soldiers. But whereas the Portuguese seem to have sold their prisoners to points beyond the delta, the kings of Arakan acquired their slaves as a form of tribute from dependent subordinates and settled them on the land as cultivators. Most were Muslims. Godfrey E. Harvey, History of Burma from the Earliest Times to 10 March 1824 (1925; reprint, London: Frank Cass & Co., 1967), 139–40, 144; Jadunath Sarkar, “The Conquest of Chatgaon, 1666 A.D.,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 3 (1907): 415, 417; D. G.E. Hall, Burma (London: Hutchinson’s University Library, 1950), 57–62.

20. François Pyrard, who visited the city in 1607, noted: “A large number of Portuguese dwell in freedom at the ports on this coast of Bengal; they are also very free in their lives, being like exiles. They do only traffic, without any fort, order, or police, and live like natives of the country; they durst not return to India [i.e., Goa], for certain misdeeds they have committed, and they have no clergy among them. There is one of them named Jean Garie, who is greatly obeyed by the rest; he commands more than ten thousand men for the king of Bengal, yet he makes not war against the Portuguese, seeing they are friends.” Pyrard, Voyage, 1: 334.

21. Abu’l-fazl ‘Allami, ā’īn-i Akbarī (Lucknow ed.), 2: 79; trans., 2: 137. “For practical purposes,” recorded the Chittagong District Gazetteer in 1908, “the revenue history of Chittagong may be said to begin with the Muhammadan conquest of 1666. Previous to that date the district consisted for the most part of uncleared jungle, but here and there immigrant squatters had made small settlements.” L. S.S. O’Malley, Eastern Bengal District Gazetteers: Chittagong (Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depot, 1908), 136.

22. Nathan, Bahāristān, trans. Borah, text, fol. 272b; trans., 2: 632.

23. Jadunath Sarkar, “Shaista Khan in Bengal (1664–66),” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, n.s., 2, no. 6 (June 1906): 409–11.

24. Abu’l-fazl, ā’īn-i Akbarī (Lucknow ed.), 2: 74; trans., 2: 132.

25. Ibid., text, 2: 74–75; trans., 2: 132.

26. Francis Buchanan, “An Account of a Journey Undertaken by Order of the Bd. of Trade through the Provinces of Chittagong and Tipperah in Order to Look Out for the Places Most Proper for the Cultivation of Spices, March-May 1798” (British Museum, London, Eur. MSS. Add. 19286), 46–47.

27. Jadunath Sarkar, “Shaista Khan,” 257.

28. O’Malley, Eastern Bengal District Gazetteers: Chittagong, 53.

29. H. J.S. Cotton, Memorandum on the Revenue History of Chittagong (Calcutta: Secretariat Press, 1880), 3–4.

30. Ibid., 13.

31. These grants exhibit elements of both the Islamic waqf and personal grants. The former were in principle institutional and permanent in nature, whereas grants such as in‘ām or madad-i ma‘āsh grants were personal and revocable. In practice, however, this pure distinction tended to break down. As Gregory Kozlowski has observed, “even an endowment for a mosque or school had a personal dimension, since the staff obtained their livings from it.” Thus the grants we are considering resembled waqf grants inasmuch as they were institutional and permanent in nature, and in‘ām or madad-i ma‘āsh grants inasmuch as they were personal and inheritable by the grantee’s descendants. See Kozlowski, Muslim Endowments and Society in British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 24–25.

32. The only Mughal records still preserved in the Chittagong District Collectorate are documents pertaining to lā-kharāj, or rent-free, grants. These survived because when the East India Company rule commenced in 1760, the British declared they would honor rent-free tenures authorized by the previous regime, meaning that those who possessed Mughal documents proving such tenure had a powerful motive to keep them. Indeed, so powerful was this motive that, as the British discovered to their dismay, some enterprising Bengalis contrived to invent such claims by forging their own “Mughal” documents. This discovery led to a series of hearings by the deputy collector of Chittagong inquiring into the validity of all such grants, with the aim of reclaiming those judged invalid. In the course of these “Resumption Hearings,” held sporadically between 1819 and 1848, the British collected and examined Mughal land records scattered throughout the district. The total of 278 grants herein analyzed represents only those that survived the scrutiny of the hearings and were declared valid. Many of the original sanads conferring such grants were probably lost during the many years since their original issuance. Nonetheless, the surviving sanads represent a sizeable body of primary data. For details on the Resumption Hearings, see Correspondence on the Settlement of the Noabad Lands in the District of Chittagong (Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat, 1871), 1: 20–21, 59–61, and Cotton, Memorandum. For a study of the Resumption Hearings, including their background in English political economy theory, their implementation, and the storm of protest they provoked in the early nineteenth century, see Abu Mohammad Waheeduzzaman, “Land Resumption in Bengal, 1819–1846” (Ph.D. diss,, University of London, 1969).

33. These diagrams were included in the files pertaining to the Resumption Hearings by the deputy collector of Chittagong between 1819 and 1848.

34. For example, a 1754 sanad conferring a grant of fourteen acres in a relatively settled area near Chittagong city, identified the granted area as “east of the royal highway, west of the tall mountains, south of the lands and gardens of Nur Khan, and north of the road and tank of Muhammad Khan.” “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” Chittagong District Collectorate Record Room, No. 208, bundle 64, case no. 4122.

35. A 1746 grant for the support of a mosque in the frontier region of Banskhali Thana identified the granted area as “east of the sea, south of Kulkhali nāla (Beng., nālā, “tributary”), west of Hamtala nāla, and north of Khatkhali nāla.” Ibid., No. 182, bundle 33, case no. 2188.

36. Ibid., No. 45, bundle 56, case no. 3626.

37. Whether defined in terms of human or natural geography, these grants show that Mughal administrators recognized land as a spatial category, possessing fixed boundaries. Although some modern scholars have argued that such territorially defined notions of power were first introduced in India by the English, it is clear from these data that concern with land as spatial territory, and not just the “village grain heap,” predated British rule. See W. C. Neale, Economic Change in Rural India (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 5–7, 20–34.

38. Chittagong District Collectorate Record Room, “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” No. 1, bundle 59, case no. 3863.

39. Ibid., No. 54, bundle 40, case no. 2545. Muqarrar numūda shud ki ābād va taraddud numūda

40. Ibid., No. 31, bundle 77, case no. 4971.

41. Ibid., No. 85, bundle 68, case no. 4314.

42. Ibid., No. 12, bundle 30, case no. 1937.

43. Ibid., No. 193, bundle 71, case no. 4526. See also No. 238, bundle 27, case no. 1628, and No. 265, bundle 62, case no. 4002.

44. Ibid., No. 54, bundle 40, case no. 2545.

45. Ibid., No. 165, bundle 28, case no. 1751.

46. Such was the case with Shaikh Ahmad Shah, who in 1720 constructed a thatched mosque in the hinterland of Patiya Thana. Ibid., No. 26a, bundle 69, case no. 4404.

47. Buchanan, “Account of a Journey,” 37–38.

48. Ibid., 15. Their rice, he wrote, “would no more grow on low ground than the rice of the jeel would on the hills.” Ibid., 50.

49. The low hills east of Sitakund, he wrote, “are occupied by small tribes of Mugs and Tiperahs, who cultivate Jooms, and at the temple on the hill adore the god of generation.” Ibid., 20.

50. Ibid., 36.

51. “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” Chittagong District Collectorate Record Room, No. 121, bundle 51, case no. 3320.

52. Buchanan, “Account of a Journey,” 29, 31.

53. Ibid., 52.

54. Ibid., 36.

55. H. Beverly, Report on the Census of Bengal, 1872 (Calcutta: Secretariat Press, 1872), lxvi.

56. This alliance of Hindu zamīndārs with government on the one hand, and Muslim cultivators with their immediate patrons on the other, foreshadowed a polarization that in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was to take on a communal coloring, eventually culminating in the Partition of 1947.

57. Buchanan, “Account of a Journey,” 162, 163.

58. “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” Chittagong District Collectorate Record Room, No. 7, bundle 62, case no. 4005.

59. Ibid., No. 138, bundle 63, case no. 4044.

60. An example will illustrate how this process worked. On A.H. 2 Ramazan 1145 (corresponding to A.D. February 16, 1733), a sanad was issued in favor of a certain Darwish Muhammad, confirming him as the trustee of both a mosque and the shrine of a holy man located in Gomdandi, Boalkhali Thana, and granting him sixteen acres of jungle land to meet the expenses of the two institutions. In the first half of the sanad, which normally consists of the petitioner’s plea, we learn that Darvish Muhammad had originally been given trusteeship over the mosque and shrine by a certain ‘Abd al-Majid, the chaudhurī, or headman, of pargana Ya‘qubnagar, which was the revenue circle in which these institutions were located. In his petition, Darwish Muhammad stated that ‘Abd al-Majid had given him a document, or khairat-nāma, conferring on him the trusteeship of the mosque and the shrine, as well as the sixteen acres of land. What the petitioner now requested was Mughal recognition and confirmation of this grant. As the sanad concluded, “On examining the qānūngū’s records and the above-mentioned documents, it is found that the above-mentioned amount of land is fixed for the expenses of the mosque and the shrine.” In short, the headman (chaudhurī) of the pargana initiated the grant, the pargana accountant (qānūngū) verified it, and the Mughal authorities in Chittagong eventually confirmed it. Ibid., No. 110, bundle 17, case no. 632.

61. See Barbara S. Miller, ed., The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992), 1–8, 19–167.

62. “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” Chittagong District Collectorate Record Room, No. 55, bundle 38, case no. 2431.

63. Ibid., No. 188, bundle 57, case no. 3736.

64. Ibid., No. 222, bundle 78, case no. 5026.

65. In the Caṇḍī-Maṅgala, the goddess Chandi orders the poem’s hero, Kalaketu, to sell a valuable ring and use the money thus obtained to clear the forest so that a city may be built in her honor. Once the land was prepared for agriculture, Kalaketu was to advance his men rice, seeds, and cash, thereby facilitating their establishment on newly claimed lands. Mukundaram, Kavikaṅkaṇa Caṇḍī, 290, 295–96, 354–55. See also Bhattacharya, “La Déesse,” 33.

66. “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” Chittagong District Collectorate Record Room, No. 37, bundle 39, case no. 2513.

67. The appropriation of saints by different religious traditions in this part of the delta was observed by the British ethnographer R. C. Temple. Writing in 1925 of the cult of Badr ‘Alam, Temple noted: “To the Buddhists, he is a nat; to the Hindus a deva or inferior god, to the Muhammadans a saint, to the Chinese a spirit. His worship is precisely that which is common all over the East to spirits or supernatural beings, believed in by the folk irrespective of their particular form of professed belief, and it points, in just the same way as do all other instances, to the survival of an old animistic worship in ‘pre-religious’ days. As in all other similar cases, one of the contending local professed religions has chiefly annexed this particular being to itself, and he is pre-eminently a Muhammadan saint, legendarily that saint best known to the bulk of the Muhammadan seafaring population, namely Pir Badr of their own chief town of Chittagong.” Temple, “Buddermokan,” Journal of the Burma Research Society 15 (1925): 9.

68. “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” Chittagong District Collectorate Record Room, “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” No. 45, bundle 56, case no. 3626.

69. Ibid., No. 248, bundle 79, case no. 5099.

70. Ibid., No. 56, bundle 71, case no. 4503.

71. Ibid., No. 1, bundle 59, case no. 3863.

72. Ibid., No. 20, bundle 44, case no. 2792.

73. Ibid., No. 70, bundle 51, case no. 3321.

74. Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, ed. Talcott Parsons (London: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), 363–81.

75. As noted in the Gazetteer for Chittagong, compiled in 1908, “In a district which has been so recently reclaimed from jungle that memories of the arduous labour involved in reclamation are fresh in men’s minds, and find expression in such titles as jungalburi (clearer of jungle), talukdar, abadkar (original cultivator) and the like, it is natural that great respect should attach to the title of the original reclaimer and of his successors.” O’Malley, Eastern Bengal District Gazetteers: Chittagong, 153.

76. “Kanun Daimer Nathi,” Chittagong District Collectorate Record Room, No. 15, bundle 68, case No. 4317.

77. Niyogi, Brahmanic Settlements, 41.

78. K. N. Gupta, “On Some Castes and Caste-Origins in Sylhet,” Indian Historical Quarterly 7 (1931): 725–26.

79. Kamalakanta Gupta, Copper-plates of Sylhet, vol. 1 (Sylhet: Lipika Enterprises, 1967), 196–97.

80. Ibid., 190, 199 n.

81. Ibn Battuta, Rehla, trans. Mahdi Husain, 241.

82. In 1636 Muhammad Zaman Tehrani, the faujdār of Sylhet, was summoned to accompany a Mughal expedition to Kamrup, “as he had resided for years in the country and was well acquainted with every particular regarding it.” Inayat Khan, Shah Jahan Nama, trans. A. R. Fuller, ed. W. E. Begley and Z. A. Desai (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1990), 235.

83. S. N.H. Rizvi, ed., Bangladesh District Gazetteers: Sylhet (Dacca: Bangladesh Government Press, 1975), 68–71.

84. “‘Ilm-i hindawī isti‘dād-i kamāl dārad. ” The sanad stipulated that the lands be handed over to Bhatacharjee’s possession, that after they were brought into cultivation, their produce must be used to meet his needs, and that he must pray assiduously for the long life of the state. Sylhet District Collectorate Record Room, “Register of Sanads,” 17: 60.

85. A grant issued in 1744 described a certain Mahadev Chakravarti as a “master of Hindu knowledge” (“‘ilm-i hindawī mahārat-i tamām dārad”), who, however, had no means of subsistence. The grant instructed local agents to confirm the Brahman’s “possession” (ba taṣarruf-i ū) of 1.95 acres of jungle that local zamīndārs had deeded him. Ibid., 19: 317.

86. Ibid., 17: 14.

87. Ibid., 10.

88. Thus in 1755 a faqīr named Rahman Bakhsh was given just over 21 acres (5.5 qulbas) of undeveloped jungle by local zamīndārs and ta‘alluqdārs in support of the reading of fātiḥa prayers at a local shrine and mosque. Ibid., 19, no. 607. The same was true for Nasir ‘Ali Faqir, to whom Hindu landholders in 1754 donated 3.9 acres for similar purposes. Ibid., 17: 215.

89. For example, on January 1, 1734 the government donated 13 acres of undeveloped jungle to Saiyid Mahdi, a servant of the shrine of Shaikh Ahmad Haji. The government ordered that the land be made over to the saiyid’s possession, and that its revenues support the lighting of the shrine’s candles and the reading of the Qur’an there. Ibid., 11: 351.

90. Ibid., 21, no. 594.

91. Ibid., no. 353.

92. These included grants by Aurangzeb (ibid., 16: 388; 21, no. 353; 17: 338), Muhammad Shah (16: 9; 19, no. 639; 21, nos. 351 and 374), Ahmad Shah (21, no. 496), and ‘Alamgir II (19, nos. 358 and 578).

93. Irfan Habib, Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556–1707 (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1963), 311.

94. Fourteen such grants were issued between 1673 and 1707, after the emperor’s order, whereas eleven had been issued before his order (1658–72). Three others are of uncertain date. See “Register of Sanads,” Sylhet District Collectorate Record Room, 17: 75, 243; 18, nos. 94, 154, 158, 279; 19, nos. 334, 618, 619; 20, nos. 851, 853, 959; 21, nos. 397, 400.

95. “Dar w ajh-i madad-i ma‘āsh-i churgarī va kharj-i ṭalaba va ṣādir-o-vārid ba fa‘alat va karāmat-i dastgāh-i Maulavī Muḥammad Rabī‘ ma‘ahu farzandān.” Ibid., vol. 21, no. 608.

96. “Dar wajh-i kharj-i masjid, khāna, va madrasa, va muta‘alliqān va ṣādir-o-vārid va fuqarā; va madad-i ma‘āsh-i fa‘alat va karāmat-i dastgāh-i Maulavī Muḥammad Rabī‘ va farzandān va muta‘alliqān-ish muqarrar gashta, ki arāẓī-yi mażkūr-rā ābād sākhta, az muḥāsil-i ān kharji masjid va madrasa va ṣādir-o-vārid va fuqarā va mā-yaḥtāj-i khūd va farzandān va muta‘alliqān-ish numūda, ba du‘āgū-yi dawām-i daulat [ishtighāl] bāshand.” Ibid., no. 609.

97. P. N. Bhattacharjee, “Folkcustom and Folklore of the Sylhet District of India,” Man in India 10, no. 1 (January-March 1930): 133.

98. H. Hosten, S. J., “The Earliest Recorded Episcopal Visitation of Bengal, 1712–1715,” Bengal Past and Present 6 (July-December 1910): 210. Trans. Hosten.

99. He may have been a renegade from Chittagong city, where there dwelled at that time a local Christian community of over two thousand persons converted by Portuguese missions. Ibid., 207.

100. That the chieftain had recruited his labor force from amongst the local population and did not bring it with him from outside Noakhali is suggested by the phrase “the labouring folk who are gathered around them (for they have taken arable lands).” The French original reads: “les gens de travail qui se sont rangés auprès d’eux (car ils ont pris des terres à cultiver).” Lettres édifiantes et curieuses écrites des missions étrangères (Paris: J. G. Merigot, 1781), 13: 282–83.

101. “Creative adaptation” perhaps best describes this process. For my general approach to culture change, which stresses the active, creative role played by those undergoing it as opposed to the role of “missionaries” or other carriers, I acknowledge a great intellectual debt to my teacher, John R. W. Smail. Writing of Indonesian history, Professor Smail long ago observed, “Remembering that the essence of acculturation is the acceptance of change by the acculturating group—and hence that there can be no question, in the last analysis, of forced culture change—we can bring the problem of culture change in late colonial Indonesia under the more suggestive heading of creative adaption.” John R. W. Smail, “On the Possibility of an Autonomous History of Modern Southeast Asia,” Journal of Southeast Asian History 2, no. 2 (July 1961):91.