1822.] . Scientific Intelligence. 393 
bespeak some resinous or oily inflammable compound, such as might 
be used without the help of nitre. But from the name given to it by 
Leo, we must conclude that he is speaking of some explosive substance, 
into which nitre entered as an ingredient. 
All the descriptions of the composition of the Greek fire seem to 
refer to resinous and oily substances; by some writers, it is said to 
have been unctuous and viscid; while others again describe it as a solid 
substance. ‘ Quintus Curtius considers it as made of turpentine. 
Anna Comnena says, that it was composed of sulphur, bitumen, and 
naphtha. In another place she says, that it was a mixture of pitch and 
other similar resins, and that it was thrown from baliste, and attached 
to arrows.”’ 
From the various modes in which it is said to have been used, it 
appears that at least two kinds of military fireworks are described under 
a common name; one of these may have been a merely inflammable 
resinous composition, while it is likely that the other was a nitrous 
compound projected from balistee in some kind of carcasses, From an 
account in a French Chronicle of 1190, it would appear that it was a 
liquid, inclosed in vessels of some kind, “ phioles.” ‘* This was then 
that liquid fire that is said to have been used by hand at sea, or in 
close action, and which is also said to have been thrown by means of 
military engines in sieges. It is evident that this is not Anna Comne- 
na’s fire, for it could not well be thrown from baliste, or attached to 
arrows; unless we imagine that it was always used with tow as before 
mentioned, [tow being dipped in it, and wrapped round arrows, ] 
Hers appears rather to have beena solid composition. It disagrees 
still more with that of Leo and Joinville.” 
It being impossible to reconcile this description to any imaginable 
composition or effects, Dr. Mac Culloch gives up the point as unintelli- 
gible; and observes, “* We cannot suppose the liquid in the ¢ phioles? 
to have contained nitre, because that salt will not mix with any liquid 
of this nature in sucha manner as to aid its combustion.” 
« The descriptions which represent the Greek fire as unctuous and 
viscid, and as adhering to the objects which it reached, may be, per- 
haps, reconciled to the former, since a viscid substance, as well as a 
liquid one, might have been kept in ‘ phioles.?. They might easily 
have been all formed of the same resinous ingredients in various pro- 
portions.” 
«The opinion of the Greek fire being inextinguishable by water 
could not justly have been entertained of any compositions of this 
nature, not even of Anna Comnena’s sulphureous compound. No 
burning substance could have resisted an application of this nature, 
provided it were employed in sufficient quantity, unless under the pro- 
tection of a carcass or tube of some kind, in which case it must also 
have contained nitre.” 
‘«¢ That sand should have extinguished some of these fires, as related 
by the Florentine monk who describes the siege of Acre, we can under-~ 
Greeks, eAaiov MrSeias, or the oil of Medea. It is Pliny alone who ostensibly refers to 
the sorceress, and he does not allude ‘to the Greek fire; and of course does not give 
naphtha a Greek name. As we know that the Medes used in war arrows smeared with 
naphtha, and inflamed, it seems probable that the appellation cited by Procopius, not- 
withstanding its orthography, tefers merely to the country, and not to the enchantress,— 
(Procop, de Bell. Gothic. 1, iv. c, 11. Plin. Hist. Nat. ii. 109.) , 
