[10] Froissart’s original account of the battle of Cressy in the Amiens MS. will be found in Kervyn de Lettenhove’s ed. of the “Chronicles,” Brussels, 1870, and in the Appendix to Polain’s ed. of the _Vrayes Chroniques de Messire Jehan le Bel_, Brussels, 1863. See also “Cannon at Cressy,” by the present writer, in _Proc. R. A. Inst._, vol. xxvi. [11] “Toxophilus,” p. 67. [12] “Sometimes we put a new signification to an old word, as when we call a Piece a Gun. The word Gun was in use in England for an Engine to cast a thing from a Man, long before there was any Gunpowder found out.”—“Table Talk,” p. 107. [13] “Language and the Study of Language,” 1867, p. 126. [14] _Cordite_, for instance, is frequently miscalled “smokeless _powder_.” [15] As _Artillery_ for ages represented both _bows_ and _cannon_. [16] “Si forte necesse est Indiciis monstrare recentibus abdita rerum, Fingere cinctutis non exaudita Cethegis Continget, dabiturque licentia sumpta pudenter.”—A. P. 48. [17] _e.g._, whether Artillery means bows and arrows or cannon in 1 Sam. xx. 40; but this is an exceedingly simple case. [18] Except one disputed Sanskrit text which will be found in Rāy’s “Hindu Chemistry,” pp. 97-8. [19] “Les terres d’où l’on tire le kien, ou la couperose de Chine, fermentent comme celles du salpêtre; on y est souvent trompé, ce n’est qu’au goût qu’on peut distinguer les unes des autres.”—Père Incarville, a Chinese missionary, in Reinaud and Favé, p. 251. [20] Supposed to be of Greek origin. [21] _Journal Asiatique_, Oct. 1849, p. 283. [22] Reinaud and Favé, p. 142. On the next page, 143, _sarcosti_ is spelled (by the same writer) _salcosti_. [23] “Tunc aquam illam (salt water) coque in vase vitreo.”—Albert Groot in Zetzner’s _Theatrum Chemicum_, 1613, ii. 433. [24] The Greeks had a corresponding distinction between natural and artificial salt. Herodotus calls the salt crystallised by the sun at the mouth of the Borysthenes ἅλες αὐτόματοι, automatic, or spontaneous salt, as distinguished from ἅλς ὀρυκτός, dug-out, or rock salt; iv. 53 and 185. [25] Berthelot, iii. 153. [26] Ib., i. 239. The forgeries in question may have been the work of several writers, but this does not affect the date given above. [27] The Arabic works of the real Jabir are given by Berthelot in iii. 126 _ff._; the Latin works of the false Jabir (or Geber) in i. 336 _ff._ [28] Ib., i. 199, recipe 60. [29] Ib., i. 308. [30] Owing to the great number of Arabic words borrowed by the Persians it is extremely difficult to judge from a translation whether a lost original was Arabic or Persian, the more so as the Arabs borrowed largely from the Persian. Far more honour for scientific work has been paid to the Arabs, far less to the Persians, Syrians, and Hindus, than was their proper due. Renan says that Al-Kindi was the only Moslem philosopher of pure Arab blood.—_Discours et Conférences_, p. 391.