The inventory of trophies at the Naval Academy contains the names of two ancient cannon; one, a "Corean gun of 1313," and the other the "Cortez gun of about 1474." These dates rest on the conclusions reached in an article published in the Proceedings of the Naval Institute for 1892, "Notes on the Date of Manufacture of the Three Guns at the U. S. Naval Academy, Captured in Corea by Rear-Admiral John Rodgers, U. S. N.," by Thomas Wm. Clarke.
Apparently in the nineteen years since that article appeared fee figures have never been challenged, and yet if they are to tie accepted they are of extraordinary interest. In that case the Naval Academy possesses, in the Corean gun of 1313, an example of ancient artillery which should upset all the accepted ideas on the history of ordnance: and, in the Cortez gun, the most remarkable specimen of 15th century cannon in existence.
I. “The Corean Gun of 1313.”
This is a small brass gun lying on the floor at the left of the north door of the Naval Academy armory. Together with two others almost exactly like it in the armory and one now at Fortress Monroe, it was brought to this country by Rear-Admiral Rodgers in 1871. As all four were taken from a river fort in Corea, they are usually referred to as Corean guns, though they are of Chinese manufacture and bear Chinese inscriptions.
Of the three in the armory one stands on a swivel in a corner of the vestibule to the left. This swivel is of modern manufacture, but serves to show how all three were originally mounted. The other two lie on the floor to the right and left of the entrance. They all bear inscriptions which, in the case of two, settle the date of their manufacture. The one mounted on a swivel was made in 1680, and the one lying to the right of the door in 1665. In the inscription on the third gun there is an omission of title which makes the date problematical, and this is the one which Mr. Clarke concluded came out of a Chinese foundry as long ago as 1313.
This omission comes at the head of one of the columns of the inscription. Instead of beginning, as the wording does on the other two, with the regal or imperial title, this starts off simply with the Chinese date, the fiftieth year in a cycle of sixty years, eighth month. As far as this information goes—and here I am following the calculations of Mr. Clarke—the date may fall in 1253, 1313, 1373, 1433, 1493, 1553- 1613 or 1673. Years before 1253 and after 1673 need not be considered.
To account for the omission of the title, Mr. Clarke is of the opinion that "some event happened which rendered the engraver doubtful about the regnal title and caused him to leave a blank in this part of the inscription to be filled in when the doubt was solved.'' Apparently in the case of this gun it left the foundry with the doubt never solved. "Such a doubt," he continues, "could only arise on an impending change of regnal title. If, therefore, we can find some Kwei Chow (fiftieth) years…in which in the eighth month a change of regnal title was impending, we shall have an indication to assist us to the exact cycle of sixty" to which this gun belongs.
By reviewing Chinese history, he finds that in 1314, on New Year's Day, the Emperor changed his title. At no other date near a Kwei Chow year can an emperor be found changing his title. Therefore the year 1313 must be correct. This applies also to the Corean gun at Fortress Monroe, whose inscription is equally lacking in "regnal title."
Accepting this conclusion for the present, let us see what it compels us to believe. The gun is described in the inscription as a "5th class Fulangki (cannon) No. 229, weight 100 catties." It means, therefore, that as early as 1313, before the dawn of artillery in Europe, China had at least five classes of cannon and that there were at least 229 of this class. But a curious thing about it is that this cannon foundry and the very existence of the guns themselves must have been a profound secret, for not one of the travelers from Marco Polo down discovered anything of the sort and no records of them exist in Chinese history. By a remarkable coincidence, Europeans, in the latter part of the 16th century, invented exactly the same, peculiar type of cannon with its open breech and movable, hooked "iron," with the same characteristics of design and ornament. They could not have learned it from the Chinese for, long before that time, the art had become extinct in China. The latter must have not only forgotten the use and the manufacture of artillery but also lost temporarily all the guns that had been cast in the early days; because, in the 17th century, when the Emperor desired cannon for his armies, he had to call on a Jesuit missionary to design a pattern and direct the casting. The other two Corean guns belong to this late period; and, as they are identical in type with this piece of 1313, we must believe that by another coincidence the Jesuits taught the Chinese exactly the same kind of gun which the latter had invented three centuries before but had strangely forgotten. By still another coincidence the Chinese re-invented to same meaningless word for "cannon" which they had applied to the forgotten guns, namely, "Fulangki."
To balance this mass of improbability on the assumption that & omission in the inscription could have occurred only because the Emperor was on the point of changing his title, and that we know all who did contemplate such a change, seems a doubtful matter at best. As it happens, there is unquestionable evidence to the contrary.
Professor F. Wells Williams, of the chair of Oriental History at Yale, kindly furnished me with information in regard to the origin of the word "fulangki" just mentioned. "The word," he writes, "did not exist in Chinese until they heard the Malay interpreters call the Portuguese 'Franks' or 'Farangki,' which can only be pronounced Fulangki by the Chinamen because they are unable to utter the sound of r. The Portuguese, as every one knows, first got to Canton in 1517. First applied to the Portuguese, the term was afterward given to their guns." Therefore the point that the Corean gun in question could not be earlier than the 16th century he says, "is proven beyond cavil."
In the Javanese section of the Museum fur Volkerkunde at Berlin may be found an almost exact duplicate of this gun, bear the Portuguese arms on its breech, and the label reads, " Of the 16th or 17th century." Of the possible dates in the Kwei Chow cycles given above, 1553 would probably be not too early and 1613 not too late for the casting of such a gun in Europe; but unless evidence is forthcoming to show that the Chinese were manufacturing their own cannon as early as these dates, they must be rejected. According to Mr. Clarke, as late as 1621, when there were a few small guns available for the Chinese forces, Portuguese engineers had to be employed to handle them. It was not till 1636 that the Jesuit, Father Schaal, was ordered by the Emperor to instruct workmen in the art of manufacturing cannon. A few years after his death in 1666 another Jesuit missionary was appointed to the same office. The last of the possible dates, 1673, seems then, not only by the process of elimination but by the evidence of history, to be the probable year. It also accords well with the dates of the other two Corean guns, which it so closely resembles.
II. “The Cortez Gun.”
This is a brass gun, much larger than the Corean guns and resting on a carriage at the right of the vestibule of the Naval Academy armory. It is one of the many trophies brought back from the Mexican War, and it has always gone by the name of the "Cortez Gun." Mr. Clarke dates it "before 1474" for the following reason: By the marriage contract of Ferdinand and Isabella "it was provided in 1469 that after her access the arms of Aragon should always be associated with those of Castile and Leon, and as this gun was marked with Castile and Leon only this fact dates it earlier than 1474"; namely, the year Isabella came to the throne.
In the first place it seems curious that Cortez, making his invasion in 1518, should have selected a gun manufactured at least 44 years previous, especially as that was a period of rapid progress in artillery. It is as if a present day filibuster were to equip himself with a smooth-bore of the Civil War. Moreover, there is no gun extant, dated as early as 1474, which is of as advanced a type as this; nor can anything like it be found in Fave's famous work on the history of artillery before the 16th century. In short, every bit of evidence that can be gleaned from extant material and the work of the most noted authority is against the idea that this gun is earlier than the 16th century. It would be a very notable exception if Mr. Clarke's contention is true, and, as the burden of proof lies with him, his evidence must be strong indeed to carry conviction.
All that he offers is the terms of the marriage contract, which provided that, after the accession, the arms of Aragon should always be associated with those of Castile and Leon. Now it is a matter of rather common experience that the terms of a contract are not always carried out to the letter, especially a marriage contract. Unfortunately, we cannot refer to other 15th century Spanish cannon, for it is doubtful if many are extant; but there is another source that may serve to prove whether the arms of Aragon were always associated with those of Castile and Leon, namely the Spanish flags of the period. Happily for our purpose we have a detailed description of the flag carried by Columbus in 1492, written by his son. It represented "an unarmed man holding a shield with the arms of Castile and Leon." It need hardly be mentioned that Columbus was sent by Ferdinand and Isabella, but evidently their flag, under which he sailed, bore no insignia of Aragon. As this gun is supposed to have been with Cortez in his conquest of Mexico, the flag that he carried would be interesting in this connection. Fortunately, this is still preserved. On one side it has a picture of the Virgin, on the other the arms of Castile and Leon. Clearly, after 1474 the arms of Aragon were not "always associated with those of Castile and Leon." Why then, if the national emblem itself ignored the Aragon arms, should one insist on finding them cast on the breech of a gun? It must be remembered that the present flag of Spain, which unites the two arms, dates only from 1785.
But Mr. Clarke's historical reasoning would be faulty even if it could be accepted that this clause in the contract was faithfully observed. After the death of Isabella there was a period when the unpopular Ferdinand retired to Aragon, and the two nations were no longer allied. This was from 1504 to 1507. It is absurd to suppose that a piece cast in Spain during those years would have been adorned with the arms of Aragon. As the Cortez expedition took place in 1518, it is at least quite as likely that the gun was made during those years as "before 1474."
All the evidence that the gun itself shows points to the 16th century. It answers to all the descriptions of the "peterero," a howitzer-like piece, open at the breech. The type was apparently of Spanish origin, and seems to have become common in Europe by the middle of the century. It was a favorite gun on shipboard in the days of Drake. If it really was one of the ten guns that Cortez used to conquer Mexico, that would be valuable evidence as to its age; but until the tradition can be confirmed it seems doubtful whether it is quite so old. It is safe to say, however, that it belongs somewhere in the 16th century, and as such is the most ancient of the Naval Academy guns.