“_7th Month_. The entire fleet arrived at the Island of Firando (P’hing-hu), and passed thence to Goriosan (Ulungshan). The troops of Tsukuzi were under arms. _1st_ of _3rd Month_. A frightful storm arose; the Mongol ships foundered or were sorely shattered. The General (Fan Wen-hu) fled with the other Generals on the vessels that had least suffered; nobody has ever heard what became of them. The army of 100,000 men, which had landed below Goriosan, wandered about for three days without provisions; and the soldiers began to plan the building of vessels in which they might escape to China. “_7th day_. The Japanese army invested and attacked them with great vigour. The Mongols were totally defeated. 30,000 of them were made prisoners and conducted to Fakata (the _Fokouoka_ of Alcock’s Map, but _Fakatta_ in Kaempfer’s), and there put to death. Grace was extended to only (three men), who were sent to China with the intelligence of the fate of the army. The destruction of so numerous a fleet was considered the most evident proof of the protection of the gods.” (_Titsingh_, pp. 264–265.) At p. 259 of the same work Klaproth gives another account from the Japanese Encyclopædia; the difference is not material. The Chinese Annals, in De Mailla, state that the Japanese spared 10,000 or 12,000 of the Southern Chinese, whom they retained as slaves. Gaubil says that 30,000 Mongols were put to death, whilst 70,000 Coreans and Chinese were made slaves. Kúblái was loth to put up with this huge discomfiture, and in 1283 he made preparations for another expedition; but the project excited strong discontent; so strong that some Buddhist monks whom he sent before to collect information, were thrown overboard by the Chinese sailors; and he gave it up. (_De Mailla_, IX. 409; 418, 428; _Gaubil_, 195; _Deguignes_, III. 177.) [Illustration: Japanese in fight with Chinese. (After Siebold, from an ancient Japanese drawing.) “=Or ensint avint ceste estoire de la desconfiture de les gens dou Grant Kaan.=”] The Abacan of Polo is probably the Asikan of the Japanese, whom Gaubil calls _Argan_. Vonsainchin is _perhaps_ Fan Wen-hu with the Chinese title of _Tsiang-Kiun_ or General (elsewhere represented in Polo by _Sangon_),—FAN TSIANG-KIUN. We see that, as usual, whilst Marco’s account in some of the main features concurs with that of the histories, he gives a good many additional particulars, some of which, such as the ill-will between the Generals, are no doubt genuine. But of the story of the capture of the Japanese capital by the shipwrecked army we know not what to make: we can’t accept it certainly.