PYROTECHNV. 



the history of an invention -which has excited to much 

 curiosity and disputation. 



With ri-.-pi-i-t to the composition of this combustible, 

 our information is often unintelligible, and 



worthless. 1'rocopius, in hi*, Hilton/ uftln- (joi/u, uses 

 Chinese, calli: < )il, as 



it'll hud h infernal composition of that noted 



sorceress. According to Anna Comnt-na, it was com- 

 posed of sulphur, bitumen, and naj.tli use of 

 nnptha is mtntioned by o'.I ::ie, as Quintu 

 Curtius, consider it as formed of turpentine. By others, 

 again, it is said to have been unctuous and VIM id ; 

 while, from the description of a third set, it must have 

 been a solid mb^tance. All the-e j n-ring reports prove 

 one of two thins, perhaps both ; namely, that the re- 





Incantatui namque ett per Mot fi'i'iliiiil i 

 Ab hoc perpetuo, Chruit, liber* MM. 



The descriptions which represent it as unctuous and 

 viscid, and as adhering to the objects which it retched, 

 may perhaps be reconciled to a fluid, kept in " phioUs ;" 

 but they have exactly the same let of difficulties, and 

 d not therefore dwell on them. We must now 

 remark, however, that the opinion of its being inextin- 

 gui liable by water could not justly have been applied 

 to any composition of thia nature, and not even to 

 Anna Comnena's receipt; as there is no inflammable 

 substance that could have resisted this application, 

 provided it were used in sufficient quantity, unless un- 

 der the protection of a carcass or tube of some kind ; 

 in which case, it must also have contained nitre. That 



.. ill %.*wwj U*MV BUW MM TV WVMMUUCU UllIC,* 4 HAL 



porters we:, ,t o : its nature, and namedby guess there js here a d dca , of ira ination or ignorance 



those substances, with the mflammable nature ot which in the g indeed lam TJ^ Florenti * e monk 



v were amuamted t or. a* we mmmmtPd hpfore. that w , m desc ' ribes thfi sj Q \- 



they were acquainted ; or, as we insinuated before, that 

 different *j military fire were described under 



a common name. 



Let us now try to reconcile its reported effects, and 

 the manner in which it was used, to any of the compo- 

 sitions above named, or to any single invention. The 

 description in the Speculum Regale, from a manuscript 

 of the thirteenth century, is among the least intelligible. 

 After enumerating several military engines, it says, 

 " omnium autem quae enumeravimus armorum et ma- 

 diinarum, pra>stantissimus est incurvus clypeorum gi- 

 gas, flammas venenatas eructans." Of this, we must 

 fairly confess, we can make nothing. 



The next account which we shall select is from a 

 French Chronicle of 1190 ; by which it would appear 

 that it was a liquid enclosed in vessels of some kind, 

 phioles." Here follows the passage itself: " Ainsi 

 qu'il alloit par mer il rencontre une nef de Saracens 

 que le Soudan Saladin envoioit en Acre pour le secours 

 i'aire a ceux, qui etoient en la cite, et cele nef avoit 

 grand plant de phioles de voire pleines de feu Gregois." 

 in this liquid state it was said to be used by hand, at 

 sea, or in close action ; and that, in sieges, it was thrown 

 by the usual military engines. Now it is abundantly 

 plain, that this is not Anna Comnena's Greek fire ; and 

 we shall soon see that it is not Joinville's. What it was, 

 is not easy to conjecture. Supposing it naphtha or pe- 

 troleum, or any such liquid, it is certain that it could 

 not have been thrown from any machinery in a stream 

 to any distance, as it must have been extinguished in 

 i:s passage through the air. As little could it have 

 been used by hand to produce any serious effect; or 

 not, at least, without the risk of equally injuring both 

 parties. On the other hand, it could not have been 

 thrown in an inflamed state in these " phioles," or in 

 any other close vessels, as it could not burn without 

 the presence of air. Here we cannot suppose it to have 

 contained nitre ; because that salt will not mix with any 



says 



Fereat ' utinam ignis hujus vena, 

 Non enim extinguitur aqua ted areua, 

 Vixq-ie rinum acidum arc'at eju* poena, 

 Et unna stringitur ejus vix habena. 



That sand should have extinguished some of these 

 fires, we can understand ; but that it should have been 

 put out by vinegar and urine, and not by water, is im- 

 possible ; as these were not likely to have been procured 

 in sufficient quantity ; surely not in such abundance as 

 water ; and on no other principle could the one have 

 acted better than the other. 



But we shall now pass over all this merely fabulous 

 matter, and examine the description of Joinville, which 

 is much more intelligible, and which, we think, fully 

 proves our supposition that there were different things 

 known by one name, and that the Greek fire used 

 against Louis at Acre was neither the Chinese oil, nor 

 any oil, nor any viscid substance, nor even the compo- 

 sition described by our celebrated female historian. As 

 this writer was an eye-witness, having been present at 

 this famous siege, his account is as worthy of credit, as it 

 is clear and descriptive. We shall also have reason to 

 see that it implies even the use of gunpowder and ord- 

 nance ; and that these inventions are also carried back 

 to a period which justifies the account of the Arabian 

 author of 1249 quoted by Casiri. 



According to this author, the Geeek fire was thrown 

 from the walls of Acre by a machine called a petrary, 

 occasioning such terror among the commanders of St. 

 Louis's army, that Gualtier de Cariel, an experienced 

 and valiant knight, advised his men, as often as it was 

 thrown, to fall prostrate on their elbows and knee?, 

 and pray to God, as he alone could deliver them from 

 the danger. And as the king lay in bed, whenever he 

 was informed that this fire was thrown, he used to 

 raise himself up, and lifting his hands, exclaimed, 



liquid bitumen in such a manner as to aid its combus- " Good Lord, preserve my people." This petrary only 

 tion. It is in vain to say that the Arabs or Greeks of threw it three times in the night, but it was also 

 that day had chemical substances unknown to us ; and thrown four times from a cross bow. 

 as it is impossible to reconcile this description, we must Here we have apparently two kinds of artillery ; 

 fain give up the point as unintelligible, excepting in as since as it is described to have come from the bottom 

 far as we have proved that this was but one of many of the petrary, that can scarcely have been any thing 

 military fires. It is worth while, however, to quote but a piece of ordnance, and probably a mortar of large 

 the opinions of the times respecting it ; as it seems to b re - 



To confirm this opinion, it came forward as large as 

 a barrel of verjuice, with a tail of fire issuing from it as 

 big as a great sword ; making a noise in its passage 

 like thunder, and seeming like a dragon flying through 

 the air; and, from the great quantity of fire it threw 



have inspired an unreasonable degree of terror ; and if 

 it were indeed such a liquid as we have here suppo- 

 sed, the effects of it could not have been very formid- 

 able : 



Ignis hie conficitur tantum per paganos, 

 Ignis hie exterminat tantum Christ ianos. 



out, giving such a light that one might see in the camp 

 as if it had been dav. Now here we are still left to 



