should begin drumming and yelling with all their might. The rest of his men, armed with bows and crossbows, he posted in ambuscade at the gate of the camp. He then set fire to the place from the windward side, whereupon a deafening noise of drums and shouting arose on the front and rear of the Hsiung-nu, who rushed out pell-mell in frantic disorder. Pan Ch‘ao slew three of them with his own hand, while his companions cut off the heads of the envoy and thirty of his suite. The remainder, more than a hundred in all, perished in the flames. On the following day, Pan Ch‘ao went back and informed 郭恂 Kuo Hsün [the Intendant] of what he had done. The latter was greatly alarmed and turned pale. But Pan Ch‘ao, divining his thoughts, said with uplifted hand: ‘Although you did not go with us last night, I should not think, Sir, of taking sole credit for our exploit.’ This satisfied Kuo Hsün, and Pan Ch‘ao, having sent for Kuang, King of Shan-shan, showed him the head of the barbarian envoy. The whole kingdom was seized with fear and trembling, which Pan Ch‘ao took steps to allay by issuing a public proclamation. Then, taking the king’s son as hostage, he returned to make his report to 竇固 Tou Ku.” [Hou Han Shu, ch. 47, ff. 1, 2.]
the second is to burn stores;
Tu Mu says: 糧食薪芻 “Provisions, fuel and fodder.” In order to subdue the rebellious population of Kiangnan, 高潁 Kao Kêng recommended Wên Ti of the Sui dynasty to make periodical raids and burn their stores of grain, a policy which in the long run proved entirely successful. [隋書, ch. 41, fol. 2.]
the third is to burn baggage-trains;
An example given is the destruction of 袁紹 Yüan Shao’s waggons and impedimenta by Ts‘ao Ts‘ao in 200 A.D.
the fourth is to burn arsenals and magazines;
Tu Mu says that the things contained in 輜 and 庫 are the same. He specifies weapons and other implements, bullion and clothing. Cf. VII. § 11.
the fifth is to hurl dropping fire amongst the enemy.
No fewer than four totally diverse explanations of this sentence are given by the commentators, not one of which is quite satisfactory. It is obvious, at any rate, that the ordinary meaning of 隊 (“regiment” or “company”) is here inadmissible. In spite of Tu Mu’s note, 焚其行伍因亂而擊之, I must regard “company burning” (Capt. Calthrop’s rendering) as nonsense pure and simple. We may also, I think, reject the very forced explanation given by Li Ch‘üan, Mei Yao-ch‘ên
