The Chinese annals give no support to the hypothesis that gunpowder was known in China in very early times. Currency was given to the popular legends about it by such writers as Father Gaubil, who declares that gunpowder had been in use for 1600 years when he wrote, and Father Amiot, who fully accepts a much earlier date. With reference to Koung-ming, who is said to have employed earth-thunder (_ty-lei_) about 200 A.D., Amiot says: (_a_) “Les auteurs qui parlent de Koung-ming ne le font pas l’inventeur de cette manière de nuire à l’ennemi. Ils disent, au contraire, qu’il l’avait puisée dans les ouvrages des anciens guerriers; ce qui est une preuve sans réplique que les Chinois connaissaient la poudre à tirer ... bien longtemps avant que cette connaissance fût parvenue en Europe.... (_b_) Les anciens Chinois employaient la poudre (_chen-ho-yen_), soit dans les combats, soit pour mettre le feu au camp des ennemis.... (_c_) Cette poudre (_ny-foung-yo_) a une vertue qui, ce me semble, pourrait être d’une très grande utileté dans nos armées; c’est que la fumée va également contre le vent.”[289] In (_a_) and (_c_) of these extracts the true note of legend is audibly sounded, and the tacit assumption that _ty-lei_ was an explosive is to be noted. As to (_b_), Amiot was unwittingly describing some early incendiary similar to that of Marcus Græcus, No. 2: “Ignis quæ comburit domos inimicorum.” Such is Father Amiot’s “preuve sans réplique” that the Chinese possessed gunpowder in the times of the pre-adamite Sultans. It must be put aside; and with it must be laid the evidence of Fathers Maillac and Gaubil. First, their critical faculty became paralysed when dealing with Chinese history. Secondly, they evidently did not understand the difference between an explosive and an incendiary. Thirdly, without questioning their good faith, they are open to the charges brought against them by MM. Reinaud and Favé, when speaking of M. Quatremère’s dating Artillery in China at the thirteenth century: “(Il) ne s’est pas aperçu que PP. Mailla et Gaubil avaient traduits différement certains passages des Annales chinoises, et qu’ils y avaient même ajouté tantôt des expressions de leur cru, et tantôt des interpolations de la version tartare-mandchou, version qui date seulement d’un peu plus d’un siècle, et qui, par consequent, n’a aucune autorité.”[290] Had the Chinese an explosive shell in 1232?