The first, I believe, to start the theory that the Spanish Arabs possessed gunpowder at this early period was Michael Casiri, a Maronite, who was librarian of the Escorial and published his _Bibliotheca Arabico Hispana Escurialensis_ in 1760-70; and his method of supporting his theory when translating the MS. of Shehab ben Fadhl, which he dates at 1249, was the simple one of translating barud by _pulvis nitratus_, the recognised Latin phrase for gunpowder.[215] Had he translated _barud_ by _saltpetre_ no difficulty could have arisen, since an Arab alchemist, Abd Allah, states that saltpetre was so called in the West during the second quarter of the thirteenth century.[216] There would be nothing surprising, therefore, in finding saltpetre mixtures employed in Spain at this period; but saltpetre mixtures, such as the last three given in Table II., are not necessarily explosive. Not only is Casiri’s translation of _barud_ unwarrantable, but he probably dates his MS. a century too early. M. Reinaud, a safe guide, believes that the MS. is Al-Omari’s, and dates 1349,[217] eighteen years after the siege of Cividale where the Germans used cannon,[218] and three years after _Cressy_ where we certainly had guns.[219] Casiri’s methods are well illustrated by his translation of an Arabic passage relating to the siege of Baza, 1325, by Ismael ben Nasr, King of Granada. The literal translation of the passage is as follows: “He (the King) marched through the enemy’s country to the town of Baza, which he invested and attacked. By means of a great machine provided with naphtha (made up in) hot (burning) balls, he struck the arch of an inaccessible tower.”[220] According to Casiri the passage reads: “Shifting his camp, he besieged with a large army the town of Baza, where, by applying fire, he discharged (_explosit_) with much noise a great machine, provided with naphtha and a ball, into a fortified tower.”[221] He introduces, it will be observed, an explosion (_explosit_) into a passage which neither mentions nor suggests one. The application of fire has no place in the original, and suggests the ignition of an explosive charge. He changes the meaning of the original by gratuitously inserting an _and_ between naphtha and ball, which were one and the same thing. He leaves us to infer that the charge was naphtha, though it was not explosive and could not project a ball. He speaks of the explosion being accompanied by a loud noise, of which there is nothing in the original. The incendiary balls are mentioned in another Arabic account of this siege, translated by Conde in his _Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabes en Espagna_, p. 593: “The Arabs attacked the city night and day with machines and engines which threw balls of fire with a loud noise” (_combatio la ciudad de dia y noche con maquinas é ingenios que lanzaban globos de fuego con grandes truenos_).