The economic importance of Hindu temples in medieval South India has been commented upon by most students of South Indian history. Without exception, the temple is seen to have had a central place in the dominantly agrarian economy of South India prior to the extension of British control in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, beyond recognition of the significant economic functions of medieval South Indian temples, little attention has been given to the matter.

The number of persons who perished in the so-called Black Hole of Calcutta in 1756 has long been a matter of controversy, especially intense since the Indian viceroyalty of Lord Curzon of Kedleston. Two scholars, C. R. Wilson and S. C. Hill, and their patron, Lord Curzon, have maintained that HolwelPs narrative declaring that 123 persons perished in the Black Hole is substantially true. On the other hand, J. H. Little has argued that the Black Hole tragedy is a “gigantic hoax,” exaggerated beyond all proportions, since only a few men, in his opinion, were confined in the Black Hole, and of them only those who had received severe wounds during the actual fighting died. While English scholars have generally followed the Curzon- Wilson-Hill school, Indian scholars have recently come to accept Jadunath Sarkar's opinion that probably not more than sixty were confined in the Black Hole.

Sun Yat-sen is well known as the founder of the Hsing-chung hui (Revive China Society), but few realize the significant role played by Yang Ch'ü-yün who, for almost five years, was the first chairman of that revolutionary organization. According to one source, it was Yang who insisted on the establishment of a republican government in what is now known as the “first revolutionary attempt of Sun Yat-sen.” This article is a study of the interplay of their leadership and the Chinese revolutionary movement from 1895 to 1900.

We present below, accompanied by a translation into English, the Danish text of an eye-witness account of Robert Clive's victory at Plassey which, to the best of our knowledge, has not previously been noticed. Although this account does not significantly alter accepted views about the battle, it gives corroborative evidence on several points. Any new contemporary narrative of this battle, universally regarded as opening the era of European political domination in southern Asia should, we feel, receive attention. This document in particular raises baffling problems, especially as to its authorship, and we hope, through publishing it in this journal of wide circulation among students of Asian history, to learn the answers to some of these mysteries. From internal evidence, it is clear that this narrative was originally written in English within two weeks after the battle by a young British military officer named John Wood.