The points mooted in the preceding quotations invite us to a consideration of the general question respecting the invention and introduction of gunpowder. A work upon this subject which has lately been jointly published by MM. Reinaud and Favé, entitled Histoire de l' Artillerie; du Feu Grégeois, etc., Paris, 1845, has increased the interest of the inquiry, though, it must be confessed, there are many doubtful points which are left in almost as great uncertainty as before. It shows that among the Arabs of the thirteenth century, many receipts were in use for the mixture of sulphur, saltpetre, and charcoal in different proportions; that there is strong reason for supposing that these were obtained originally from the Chinese, about the ninth century; that they improved their knowledge during the three following centuries; that they again derived more instruction on this subject, after the Mughal irruption of the thirteenth century; that as “China snow” and “China salt” are the names given by the oldest writers to saltpetre, its discovery originated with that nation; and that in the history of the Sang dynasty, as early as A.D. 1259, there is distinct mention of a projectile by means of fire; for that in the first year of the period Khaiking, a kind of fire-arm was manufactured, called “impetuous fire-dart;” a nest of grains (case of chick-peas?) was introduced into a long tube of bamboo,* which, on being ignited, darted forth a violent flame, and instantly the charge was projected with a noise like that of a pao, which was heard at about the distance of 150 paces.* There are, however, some anecdotes which militate against the probability of the Chinese being so early in possession of this destructive power; but there is no occasion to notice them here. These authors consider that Greek fire never became extinct, that it was gradually improved upon, till the name was lost, and that by progressive transitions it reached its maximum effect by conversion into gunpowder.
It is not intended, however, to introduce in this place a dissertation on a subject which has occupied so many able and discriminating pens. I will confine myself to a few remarks having special reference to India, and to some illustrations, most of which have not been noticed by authors who have entered upon this interesting inquiry.*
When the Muhammadan connexion with India first commenced, we find, according to the ancient and authentic historians, that the powerful engine called manjaník was brought into use as a propelling machine. It was a favourite implement with the Arabs, and was used by them in A.H. 9, when Muhammad besieged Táíf;* but it was known to them much earlier: for Ibn Kotaibah says that it was first used by Jazymah, the second King of Hyrah, who flourished about A.D. 200. The Arabs ascribe its invention to the Devil, and say that he suggested it to Nimrod, when he persecuted Abraham.* Whether the word be derived from machina, or manganum, the substitution of the soft j for the harsher consonant, and the circumstance that this warlike engine was first used in Hyrah, render it probable that the Arabs received the manjaník from the Persians, and not directly from the Greeks.
Biládurí gives us the following account of Muhammad Kásim's proceedings at the port of Daibal, in A.H. 93 (A.D. 711-12), in which the manjaník plays an important part:
“[As soon as Muhammad Kásim] arrived at Daibal, he dug an entrenchment, and defended it with spearmen, and unfurled his standard; each band of warriors was arranged under its own standard, and he fixed the manjaník, which was called ‘The Bride,’* and required the power of 500 men to work it. There was at Daibal a lofty temple, surmounted by a long pole, and on the pole was fixed a red cloth, which, when the breeze blew, was unfurled over the city.”*
Shortly afterwards he continues:
“A letter came from Hajjáj to Muhammad to the following effect, ‘Fix the manjaník and shorten its feet (foot),* and place it on the east; you will then call the manjaník-master, and tell him to aim at the flagstaff, of which you have given a description.’ So he brought down the flagstaff, and it was broken; at which the Infidels were sore afflicted.”
On the capture of the town, Biládurí continues to say, the carnage endured for three days, and the priests of the temple were massacred, Other authors say that Muhammad Kásim caused every Bráhmin, from the age of seventeen and upwards, to be put to death; and that the young women and the children of both sexes were retained in bondage.
Later writers, in speaking of this period, tell us distinctly that fiery projectiles were used in the capture of Alor, which fell shortly after Daibal.* Mír Ma'súm Bhakkarí, in his History of Sind, and Haidar Rází, in his General History, both in the same terms mention fire-playing machines (átish-bází), “which the Arabs had seen in use with the Greeks and Persians;” and again, when Rájá Dáhir was mounted on an elephant, the Arabs took vessels filled with fireworks (hukkahá-e átish bází), and threw them upon the seat, which was fixed on the back of the elephant; upon which the affrighted animal became ungovernable,* ran off, and, breaking the ranks of the Hindús, endeavoured to throw itself into the river. This, if true, is the first account we have of the use by the Arabs of the incendiary preparations of the Greeks, which has hitherto not been dated earlier than from the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 1099.*
This is also related in the Chach-náma and Tuhfatu-l Kirám;* but in one of the best copies of the Chach-náma I have seen, while there is mention of the catapulta called “The Bride,” which required 500 men to work it, there is no mention of engines throwing fire. Dáhir's elephant is distinctly mentioned to have taken flight at an arrow of naphtha, which the Arab general ordered one of his strong naphtha-throwers to aim at the elephant-seat of Dáhir.* If we except the Chach-náma, these later testimonies are of little value against the silence of Biládurí, and we must reject the story of the projectiles, the hukkahá-e átish bází, though we may admit, on the authority of the Chach-náma, that a naphtha-arrow was used. The place of action offers the same probability as to the use of such a weapon, as it does in the case of Mahmúd the Ghaznivide, mentioned above.
A few years later, we find one of Muhammad Kásim's successors using a battering ram:
“And Junaid fought against Kíraj, which had revolted, and he took a battering ram with horns of great power, and demolished with it the walls of the city. He entered the breach, and slew, imprisoned, and pillaged the inhabitants. He then sent his officers towards the Nermada, Mandavi? Jhand? and Baroach.*
Passing over three centuries, we come to the period of Mahmúd, to which allusion has already been made. Throughout his reign, and the whole of the Ghaznivide reigns, we find no single author alluding to such implements; but it is incidentally mentioned that Altún Tásh received a manjaník when in India.*
Nearly two centuries after that, a little before A.D. 1200, we come to the Dynasty of the Ghorians, and though no mention is made by the Muhammadan writers of any incendiary preparations used in the wars between the Muhammadans and the Hindús, yet if we are to believe the contemporary Hindú bard, Chánd, we shall find even cannon-balls to be in use at that time. But it appears to me evident that the passages where they are mentioned are spurious, and interpolated to accommodate the poem to the knowledge of subsequent ages.* In the 150th chhand or stanza of the Kanauj-Khand, Tátár Khán says to Muhammad Ghorí, “Oh! chief of Gajní, buckle on your armour, and prepare your fire-machines.” Another meaning may be given to the passage, which, however, would be forced and unnatural.
Átish is a Persian word, and Káfir and Sultán used in the same stanza, are also of foreign stamp; though they no doubt were among the first words of Muhammadan extraction which were introduced into India. The use of Átish renders the passage suspicious. In other respects the verse in which it occurs does not bear the appearance of modern manufacture. In the 257th stanza, it is said, that “The calivers and cannons made a loud report, when they were fired off, and the noise which issued from the ball was heard at a distance of ten kos.”* The two lines in which this passage occurs are evidently a modern interpolation, and the lines which precede and follow them are of doubtful antiquity. The words used in the middle lines, though Hindí, seldom occur in ancient authors, and the introduction of tope is decisive as to the period of composition.