The Impact of Zionist Colonization on Palestinian Arab Society before 1948 Author(s): Nathan Weinstock Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1973), pp. 49-63 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2535480 . Accessed: 07/11/2014 20:29 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . University of California Press and Institute for Palestine Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Palestine Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE IMPACT OF ZIONIST COLONIZATION ON PALESTINIAN ARAB SOCIETY BEFORE 1948 NATHAN WEINSTOCK * Evaluations of the impact of Zionist colonization on Palestinian Arab society have tended to emphasize the reduction of the majorityo f Palestinians to the status of refugeesf ollowingt he 1948 and 1967 wars. A subject to which less attention has been paid, but which is certainly not lacking in interest, is the effecto f Zionism upon the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine prior to 1948. A view often expressed by authoritiesw ho can by no means be con- sidered as mere propagandists-wherever theirs ympathiesm ay lie as regards the Palestine problem-stresses the benefitst he Arab population is alleged to have derived fromJ ewishs ettlementi n the Mandatory period. 1 The follow- ing quotation fromA lbert Dorra's assessment of the impact of Zionism on Palestine and on the neighbouring countries may be regarded as typical:2 Zionism is one of the major factors that have determined the economic evolution of the Middle East since the end of the last war.... The result in every field affected by Jewish colonization has been very great, es- pecially if measured by the scale of development in the surrounding countries during the same time. Arid land and malarial swamps were turned into blossoming fields and groves, barren slopes were covered with fruit trees and forests....B y applying capital and science, and by judiciously selecting profitable crops and choosing the right methods of farming,t he Jews were able to increase appreciably the productivity of Palestinian agriculture though only after years of hard pioneering exertions. Their Arab neighbours gradually learnt from their improved methods, greatly assisted by the large amounts of Jewish imported * Nathan Weinstock is the author of Le Sionismec ontreIs rael (Paris: Maspero, 1969) and a former member of the left-wing Zionist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair. This paper will appear in the Commemoration Volumes to be published as a part of the Golden Jubilee Celebrations of the Department of Sociology of the University of Bombay. 1 D. Horowitz, "Arab Economy in Palestine," in J.B. Hobman, ed., Palestine'sE conomic Future (London: Percy Lund Humphries, 1946), pp. 55-65; A. Dorra, "Palestine and the Economic Development of the Middle East," Ibid., pp. 98-104; Robert Misrahi, "Les Isra6- liens, les Arabes et la Terre," Les Temps Modernes,1 47-148 (June 1958) pp. 2182-2209, etc. 2 Dorra, op. cit., pp. 98-104. IPS - 4 This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 50 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES capital that flowed into their hands through land purchase, internal trade, and throughg overnments ervicesp aid for by taxes collected from the Jews.... In many respects the expansion in Palestine of Jewish immigrationa nd the development of Jewish economy can only bring advantages to the Middle East. Not only will Jewish capital flowing on to the Palestinian Arabs help them raise their own economic standard to the level reached by the Jews, but the Jewish economy itselfw ill be an ever-growing consumer of foodstuffsa nd raw materials supplied by the neighbouring states. Moreover, the growing capital goods and quality goods industries of Palestine will also be in a position to help accelerate the industrial equipment of the Middle East countries... One might add that this sounds quite plausible. After all, even if one categorically rejects Zionism and takes a totally negative view of the manner in which its aims have been implemented, this should not preclude us from recognizing its achievements. It is a matter of common knowledge that the apartheid regime in South Africa affordst he oppressed indigenous coloured population a higher standard of living than the neighbouring independent states. To admit facts such as these does not imply that one approves of or condones apartheid. It could actually easily be shown that the very dynamics of segregated South African society have been instrumentali n bringinga bout this, at firsts ight paradoxical, situation. In contemporary Israel the Arab labour force enjoys a standard of life far more favourable than in the Arab countries. Needless to say, this does not contradict the reality of national oppression of the Palestinian population in the Jewish state. The aim of this research is to examine the statementsr egarding the al- leged benefits Zionism is presumed to have held for the Palestinian Arabs beforet he war of 1948. The thesisw ill be that the Zionist enterpriser epresents a deviantP atterno f colonizationin comparison with the usual schema (exploita- tion of the indigenous labour force by the settlers). These unique features which were implicit in Zionist ideology, did not, however, emerge clearly until the second wave of Jewish immigration (roughly from 1903 onwards). Before this date, Jewish settlementsi n Palestine did not evolve any charac- teristicsa t variance with the prevalent colonial pattern, to the extent that many disillusioned, idealistic Zionists broke off their relationship with the movement because they considered that the Jewish settlersh ad become mere "planters." To understand how this peculiar situation arose, a concise description of the Zionist movement is required. Initially the creed of the Jews who as- pired to returnt o the Holy Land in order to settle there, as long as Zionism retained this primitive form,i t remained a romantic ideology of a pre-polit- ical nature, reflectingt he anguish of the oppressed Jewish masses in Eastern Europe still permeated by the spirit of the ghetto and conveyingt heir yearn- ing for a national revival. During the last quarter of the nineteenthc entury- This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions IMPACT OF ZIONIST COLONIZATION 51 the era of modern Imperialist expansion-the currentt ook a new turn under the influenceo f Theodore Herzl, who had developed a new brand of Jewish nationalism in his pamphlet Der Judenstaatan d had convened the firstZ ionist Congress at Basle in 1897 on the basis of his programme. The assembly de- scribed its aim as being the establishmentf or the Jewish people of a lhomei n Palestine secured by public law. This modernized version of the original Zionist mystique, now stripped of its initial religious and quasi-messianic content and remoulded in the spirit of contemporary nationalism, is com- monly called "political Zionism." It carried obvious implications for the inhabitants of Palestine, since they were scheduled to become aliens in their own country-assuming they were to be allowed to remain where they were- withoute ven being consulted. But the unique characteristicso fJewishc olonization in Palestine eventually appeared as a consequence of an ironical development in its history,n amely the growth of a powerful socialist wing within the Zionist movement. This current was especially prevalent in Eastern Europe - the main reservoiro f prospectivei mmigrants- under the influence of Tolstoy's doctrinesa nd the general popularityo f socialisma mong Jewishy outhd uring the years preceding the firstR ussian Revolution of 1905. The defeat of this first major attempt to revolutionize the Tsarist Empire, following in the wake of a fearful wave of pogroms, tremendouslys trengthenedt he left-wingZ ionist current: the futureo f the revolutionarym ovement in Russia seemed very dim indeed, and many disappointed Jewish revolutionistss witched their allegiance to Zionism. These people sought to combine theirf ormers ocialist commitment with their desire to build a Jewish state in Palestine. The result of this new blend of Zionism was a socialistic doctrine that was to have a lasting effect on Zionist ideology and practice. It is hardly exaggerated to claim that the distinctivep attern of Zionist colonization in Palestine (the growth of the col- lective Kibbutzim and co-operative settlements,t he unique importance of the trade-union Leviathan, the Histadrut, the foremost employcr of the country) can be traced back entirely to the left-wingZ ionist currcnts. In fact, the majority of the immigrants who belonged to the third wave of colonists (at the beginning of the 1920's) were left-wingZ ionist pioneers. The leading theoretician of this movement was Ber Borochov. Under the influence of these Labour Zionists,J ewishs ettlementi n Pales- tine was to take on a new form,c onvenientlyy et sincerelyr ationalized by the use of Marxian terminology. Now the firstJ ewish settlers,a ided by Baron Rothschild, had bought land from the feudal owners (the effendis) and exploited the fellaheen who had formerlyt illed the land in a typical colonial fashion. But the left-wingZ ionists meant to create a Jewish workingc lass in Palestine: this was to be achieved by implementing the slogan of exclusive This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 52 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES Jewish labour which in effectp rohibited the native population from being employed on Jewish farms or factories. The Jewish National Fund was es- pecially adamant about this in its policy of leasing land to prospectivec ol- onists. Strangely enough, this racialist attitude, motivated by the need to suppress the competitiono f cheap local labour, which was obviously strikingly similar to the stand taken by reactionaryA ustralian or American trade unions on the immigrationo f cheap labour fromt he colonized countries,w as actually explained away as signifyinga rejection of colonial practice. To tolerate Arab labour on Jewish farms,t hese Zionist pioneers were fond to point out, was tantamount to colonialism. Thus they construed their advocacy of a policy of Jewish labour as being a necessary consequence of their socialist outlook. This attitude was at the root of the "economic separateness"3 that struck all the observerso f the Palestinian scene. This philosophy had clearly to lead to some type of partition of the country in the long run. In fact, the subse- quent development of the Zionist experiment rested entirely on the twin principles of (exclusive) "Jewish labour"-i.e., the boycott of the landless fellaheen-and "Jewish produce"-i.e., the boycott of Arab produce.4 This was required in order to guarantee the viability of Jewish enterprisesa nd the comparatively high wage level of the Jewish worker. Ultimately,t he implementation of this segregationistp olicy led to the development of a quasi-autarchic Jewish economy organized on rigidlyn ational lines (national- istic trade unions, militia, schools and social and political institutions), embodying the embryo of the futureJ ewish state. The interestingp oint about Zionist colonization in Palestine is that it cannot be explained by the mechanisms that generally apply to colonialism. Palestine hardly representeda n important market or a vital source of cheap labour in view of its modest population. Its raw materials were scarcely worth mentioning. The land was abysmally poor. Surely this was not the ideal place to which to export vast amounts of capital in the hope of reaping huge profits! An expert on the agriculture of the Middle Eastern countries5 has pointed out that in Palestine "the mostm odern and intensivem ethods achieve only the same wheat yields as the Balkan peasant, with his primitive and extensive cultivation." So much for the legend of "the land of milk and ho- ney." And the authors of a standard textbook on the industrializationo f the Middle East stressi n regard to Palestine that "it is not necessarily the pre- sence of raw materials or cheap labour, or the proximity of markets that 3 Reportt o theG eneralA ssemblyb yt heU N Special Committeoen Palestine,G eneva, August 31, 1947, p. 19, no. 25. 41 Rony Gabbay, A Political History of the Arab-JewishC onflict( Geneva: Droz, 1959), pp. 26-30 and Abraham Revusky, Les Juifs en Palestine (Paris: Payot, 1936), p. 85. 5 Doreen Warriner, Land and Povertyin theM iddle East (London, 1948), p. 52. This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions IMPACT OF ZIONIST COLONIZATION 53 prompts industrialization. It was rather a 'psychological location of industry' which brought men and capital to Palestine."6 These remarks are sufficient proof of the special features of Zionist colonization, prompted by sentimental considerations rather than by economic motives. Yet the application of co- lonial techniques to Palestine ultimately gave rise to a typically colonial, though markedly original, pattern of dispossessiono f the native population. ChristopherS ykes has used the followingw ords to summarize the nature of the problem resultingf romt he Zionist programme of a Jewish state based upon its own working class and thriving upon a separate economy: The land problem of Palestine came primarily from... the sales, often of very large tracts of country, by absentee landlords to Zionist indivi- duals and syndicates.A usual condition of such sales was that the tenants should be evicted, for of what interestt o Zionists was the possession of Arab-tenanted land? The wretched people who had earned a living, sometimes for many generations, on the land in question, found them- selves forced out of their homes and deprived without compensation of their only means of earning bread.... Evicted tenants,t he real sufferers by Jewish immigration, were the essence of the Palestine problem.7 The testimonyo f an Israeli historiani s especially valuable in this respect because he illustratest he reaction of local Arab opinion to the implementation of the Labour-Zionist ideology with its apartheid-like implications.8 This is how he describes the attitude of the fellaheen before the First World War: The local Arab fellaheen occasionally reacted-from the earliest days of the new Yishuv-by perpetratingp hysical violence. These outbreaks were not the resultso f the actual purchase by Jews of land in Palestine- since most of the fellaheen themselves were not landowners-but of its implementation. Hitherto the proprietors had been chiefly absentee landowners to whom a percentage of the crops had to be paid but who did not interferew ith the traditional rights of pasture, or with other aspects of everyday life that gave rise to bad feeling and sometimes conflict when the Jewish colonists came to settle on the land they purchased. In the course of time the neighbouring Arabs of each village or colony also manifested their dissatisfaction with the attempts to introduce Jewish labour. With regard to the arrival of the wave of socialist-Zionists ettlers,h e comments: These Russian Jewish labourers, togetherw ith the principle of exclusive Jewish labour, were considered by a number of Zionists and members of the Yishuv to constitutea major factori n arousing the hostilityo f the Palestine Arabs. 6 Kurt Grunwalda ndJ oachirn0 . Ronall, Industrializatiionn t heM iddleE ast (New York: Council forM iddle EasternA ffairsP ress,1 960), p. 259. 7 ChristopherS ykes,O rdeW ingat(eL ondon: Collins, 1959), p. 106. 8 Yaacov Ro'i, "The Zionist Attitudet o the Arabs 1908-1914", MiddleE asternS tudies IV, 2 (April 1968), pp. 201-202, 223 and 233. This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 54 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES And finally,h e sketches the ideology of the left-wingZ ionists as far as the "natives" were concerned: They preached that the international brotherhood of workers applied only to workers who were already secure in their employment; it did not apply to a potential proletariat that had to strugglet o find employ- ment and could not refrainf romc onflictw ith those workersw hose place of work they must take for themselves. When the firstZ ionist settlerse stablished themselvesi n Palestine (from 1882 onwards), the countryw as a small underdeveloped cornero f the Ottoman Empire. The existing subsistence economy was already caught in a process of disintegrationa s a result of the gradual absorption of the Turkish Empire into the capitalist orbit. This trend was accelerated by the acquisition of large tracts of land and real estate by the Greek Orthodox Church which resulted in the injection of considerable amounts of money into the country; the activities of the German Templar sect, who set up a number of small- scale enterprisesi n Palestine before World War I; the effecto f the financial contributionss ent to the Levant by Lebanese and Syrian emigrds; and, lastly, as far as the Palestine Jewry,w ho constituted approximately one-tenth of the indigenous population, was concerned, the remittances sent by Jewish communities abroad to sustain the scholars residing in the Holy Land. 9 On the whole, the countrys till remained semi-feudala nd the small trickle of trade was confined to the larger towns. Eventually, Jewish colonization gave the final impetus to capitalist penetration in Palestine, hastening the ruin of the subsistence economy. The social pyramid was dominated by the small aristocracy of landowners admitted to the effendio r governingc lass, a mere handful of families.1 0 A numerically unimportant middle class, composed of professionalm en, shopkeepers and prosperous owner-cultivators, was in fact structurallyd ependent on this elite. At the lowest rung of the ladder came the vast majorityo f the population, the fellaheen,t enant-farmers or tillers of the communal grounds held collectively in mesha' tenure or, more and more, landless peasants. 11A lthough small ownership was increasing as a result of the breakdown of communal ownership (one of the objects of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858), rural indebtedness was assuming such tremendous proportions that a growing number of cultivators were forced to sell their holdings to wealthy merchants and become share-tenants1. 2 9 Weinstock,o p. cit., pp. 62-75 and Robert Szereszewski," Palestine on the Eve of Jewish Colonization" in Essays on the Structulroef the Jewish Economy in Palestine and Israel (Jerusalem:M aurice Falk Institute,1 968), pp. 88-92. 10 PalestineR oyal CommissionR eport ("Peel Report"), Cmd. 5479, p. 44. 1 The Bedouins,b eing nomads,w ere not consideredp art of settleds ociety. 12 Warriner,o p. cit., p. 22. This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions IMPACT OF ZIONIST COLONIZATION 55 The general situation is reflectedi n the followings tatistics: 91.8 per cent of the land plots in the 1930's were inferiort o 100 dunums (1 dunum=0.247 acre) and yet they covered only 36.7 per cent of the cultivated area. On the other hand, the thirteene states of more than 5,000 dunums-0.01 per cent of the total number of plots - amounted to 19.2 per cent of the cul- tivated area. 13 Now we can endeavour to assess the impact of Zionist colonization on the various parts of Palestinian society. As the reader will notice, this analysis bringso ut in a strikingf ashion the importance of the dual nature of the Pales- tinian economy, in which a modern Jewish capitalist economy was "projected onto a backward Arab economy, yet hermetically sealed and segregated from it." 14 I. DEMOGRAPHY The demographic mutation of Palestinian society has obviously been the most apparent change brought about by Zionist immigration.T he Jewish community, which amounted to some 24,000 people in 1882, had already expanded to 85,000 in 1914. Palestine Jewry sufferedc onsiderably under the rule of Jamal Pasha, the military governor of Syria during the First World War, and its numbers declined appreciably. By 1922, however, the Jewish population once again amounted to 84,000 persons, the total number of inhabitants being 752,000. During the following years, as a result of immi- gration, the Jewish minoritys teadily increased to 175,000 Jews in 1931 out of a total population of 1,033,000. The rise of Fascism in Europe gave a con- siderable impulse to immigration and by 1940 the Jewish community was estimated to number no less than 464,000. At the end of the Second World War the 583,000 Jews represented roughly one-third of the Palestinian po- pulation, which was estimated at 1,887,000.15 Initially only a small minorityo f loosely related congregations living a marginal life dedicated mainly to religious pursuits, the Jewish community had been transformedi nto a tightlyk nit unit, increasingly aware of its na- tional characteristics,w hich had developed on the basis of a quasi-autarchic economy and been considerably enhanced by the practice of self-government and the generalized use of the Hebrew language. The indigenous Jewish community had been completely estranged from the Palestinian society to whicb it initially belonged as a result of the segregated development of Zio- nist society. 13 A. Granott, The Land Systemin Palestine( London: Eyre and Spottiswoode,1 952), pp. 34-35. 14 Horowitz,o p. cit., p. 55. 15 I.N.S., Memento 1:conomique,L a Palestine(P aris, 1948), p. 38. This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 56 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES On the other hand, the Arab societyt oo had acquired a distinctd egree of cohesion. The Palestinian Arabs, especially the Moslems who constituted the vast majority of the villagers, were increasing at an extraordinarilyf ast rate-their birth-rate (47.8 per 1000 during the years 1927-39) was believed to be one of the highest of the world, while their death-rate had fallen from an average of 28.6 per 1000 in 1925-27 to 20.3 per 1000 during the period 1927-39.16 This improvement was largely due to the effecto f Jewish im- migration on health standards. Even such an uncompromisingf oe of Zionism as Abcarius17 grudgingly admits that "no one, however, can cavil at the moderate statement in the Peel Report that the measures carried out by the Jews have benefittedt he Arabs incidentally." The trend towards urbanization should also be stressed: by 1942, 27.0 per cent of the Moslem population - compared to 76.0 per cent of the Jews - lived in urban areas. 18 II. LAND In this field the transformationw as especially acute. Jewish-owned land increased from 25,000 dunums in 1882 to 420,600 in 1914.19 Thanks to the acquisition of large tracts of land by the Jewish National Fund and other Zionist private or public agencies, holdings amounted to 594,000 dunums in 1922, 1,058,500 in 1939 and 1,604,800 in 1941.20 The land was bought main- ly from large landowners, mostly absentee landlords, and the transfero f propertyu sually resultedi n the eviction of the tenants. According to Granott's computations,2 only 3.8 per cent of the land acquired by Zionist settlers' organizations,e specially the J.N.F. and its agencies, was sold by the fellaheen themselvesd uring the years 1920-22 and only 1.6 per cent from 1923 to 1927. It is difficultt o estimate the number of peasants evicted as a result of these sales effectedb y the Arab landowners. "The number of landless agricultural workers was estimated at 30,000 families or 22 per cent out of the total of 120,000 families dependent on agriculture, according to the census of 1931. Their numbers are now certainlyl arger," stated Doreen Warriner in 1948. 22 In addition to the agriculturalw orkers,c ountlessf amilies driftedt o the towns. Naturally, the sales increased the high pressure on the land, which was 16 Warriner,o p. cit., p. 54 and Horowitz,o p. cit., p. 55. 17 M.F. Abcarius, Palestine Throuight he Fog of Propaganda (London: Hutchinson,n .d. [1946?), p. 118. 18 Nathan, Gass and Creamer,P alestine: Problema nd Promise( Washington:1 946), quoted in Shlomo Sitton,I srael, Immigrationet Croissance1 948-1958 (Paris: Cujas, 1963), p. 70. 19 La Palestine,p . 57. 20 Great Britain,A Suirveyof Palestine,I (Jerusalem,1 946), p. 372. 21 Granott, op. cit., p. 277. 22 Warrinero, p. cit., p. 63. This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions IMPACT OF ZIONIST COLONIZATION 57 furthera ggravated by the primitivea nd wasteful exploitation of the land in Arab agriculture, the high birth-ratea nd the lack of opportunitiesf or em- ployment in industry2. 3 Undoubtedly, these sales led to the settlemento f the Jewish agriculturists in the most fertilea reas of the country.A rough assessmento f this trend can be deduced fromt he fact that only 19.7 per cent of the Jews lived in the hill districts( as opposed to the fertilep lains) in 1943 compared to 56.7 per cent of the Arabs. 24 However, the tremendous inflow of capital into the hands of the Arab landowners who sold theire statesc ontributedt o the developmento f cash-crop farming and to increased productivityi n the Arab countryside.A rab citrus plantations, for instance, increased from 22,000 dunums in 1922 to 144,000 in 1937. 25 During the years 1925-34, it was estimated that the productivity of Palestinian Arab agriculture amounted to 151 per cent of that of neigh- bouring Syria. 26 This trend was stimulated furtherb y the boom experienced by the Palestinian economy during the Second World War. Nonetheless, although the inflow of capital was an answer to the tech- nical problems of Arab agriculture, (i.e., mainly the process of introducing irrigationa nd changing over fromt he production of energy-producingf ood- stuffst o that of protective foodstuff-s the cultivator's standard of living increased by 171 per cent through irrigationa lone), it could not solve the structuraaln d social problemosf Arab farming,n amely the twin problems of indebtedness and land tenure.2 7 In 1930 it was estimatedt hat the average indebtednesso f a fellaheenf amily was [P 27 on which interesta t an average rate of 30 per cent was being paid, while the average income of a fellaheen family was between L'P 25-30 per annum. Thus it was virtually impossible for any farmer to repay more than a fractiono f his debt, and a debt, once incurred,c ould never be cancelled, but had to be renewed at intervals at exorbitant rates of interest2. 8 One need hardly add that under these circumstanceso nly the privileged stratum of rich landowners could think of investing capital in agriculture (if they did not prefert he quick gains of speculation in real estate). The dramatic situation of the fellaheen and the pressure on the land, aggravated by the continuing land sales of the effendic lass to Zionist or- ganizations, was the backcloth to the Palestinian revolt of 1936. 28 Ibid.,p . 58. 24 Nathan et al., accordingt o Sitton,o p. cit.,p . 68. 25 Horowitz,o p.c it.,p . 59. 26 Misrahi,o p. cit.,p . 2192. 27 Horowitz,o p. cit.,p . 59. 28 Warrinea, op. cit., p. 62. This content downloaded from 142.35.159.124 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:29:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions