(3) Titus perceyvenge that, sende furthe a sawte and schotte gunnes to the walles in so much that the hynder parte of the hedde of a man stondenge by Josephus was smyten by the space of thre forlonges (MS. Harl.). D (1) Admotis tandem arietibus ad templum (Higden). (2) At the laste the engynes were remeved toward the temple (Trevisa). (3) Titus causede his gunners to schote at the Temple (MS. Harl.). No suspicion rests upon either of these translators; yet, were the original lost, a covert allusion to cannon might be discovered in Trevisa’s translation of B and C, and the Harleian translation of A, C, and D would be put forward as proof positive of their use. III The claims of the Greeks to the invention of gunpowder are examined in Chap. III. Chap. IV. is an inquiry into the nature and authorship of the _Liber Ignium_ of Marcus Græcus. The claims of the Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, and English are considered in Chaps. V.-VIII. In Part II. the progress of Ammunition is very briefly traced from the introduction of cannon to the introduction of breechloading arms. As the book is addressed to the officers of the Army, who seldom have a library at command, the authorities for the statements of important facts are generally given at length. On all controversial points, when a foreign authority is quoted the original[18] is given as well as the translation. I have endeavoured to acknowledge my obligation in all cases where quotations have been borrowed from others without verification. The invention of gunpowder was impossible until the properties of saltpetre had become known. We proceed, therefore, in the following chapter to determine the approximate date of the discovery of this salt. CHAPTER II SALTPETRE The attention of the ancients was naturally attracted by the efflorescences which form on certain stones, on walls, and in caves and cellars; and the Hindus and nomad Arabs must have noticed the deflagration of at least one of them when a fire was lit on it. These efflorescences consist of various salts,—sulphate and carbonate of soda, chloride of sodium, saltpetre, &c.—but they are so similar in appearance and taste, the only two criteria known in primitive times,[19] that early observers succeeded in discriminating only one of them, common salt, from the rest. So close, in fact, is the resemblance between potash and soda, that their radical difference was only finally established by Du Hamel in 1736. Common salt received a distinctive name in remote times; all other salts were grouped together under such vague generic names as _nitrum_, _natron_, _afro-nitron_, &c.