With respect to the composition of this combustible, our information is often unintelligible, • and generally worthless. Procopius, in his History of the Goths, the same term as the Chinese, calling it Medea's 011, as if it had been some infernal composition of that noted sorceress. According to Anna Comnena, it was compos ed of sulphur, bitumen, and naphtha. The use of naphtha is mentioned by others. Some, as Quintus Curuus, con sider it as formed of turpentine. By others, again, it is said to have been unctuous and viscid ; while, from the description of a third set, it must have been a solid sub stance. All these jarring reports prove one of two things, perhaps both ; namely, that the reporters were ignorant of its nature, and named by guess those substan ces, with the inflammable nature of which they were acquainted ; or, as we insinuated before, that different species of 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 composi tions above named, or to any single invention. The de scription in the Sfieculurn Regale, from a manuscript of the thirteenth century, is among the least intelligible. After enumerating several military engines, it says, " omnium autem gum enumeravimus armorum et machinarum, prxstantissimus est incurvus clypeorum gigas, 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 viler it rencontre une nef de Saracens que le Soudan Saladin envoioit en Acre pour le secours faire 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 petroleum, 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 base been extinguished in its 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 liquid bitumen in such a manner as to aid its combustion. It is in vain
to say that the Arabs or Greeks of that day had chemical substances unknown to us ; and as it is im possible to reconcile this description, we must fain give up the point as unintelligible, excepting in as far as we have proved that it was but one of many military fires. It is worth while, however, to quote the opi nions of the times respecting it ; as it seems to 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: Theantatas namque est per Mos prophanos : Ab hoc perpetuO, Christe, libera nos.
The descriptions which represent it as unctuous and viscid, and as adhering to the objects which it reached, may perhaps be reconciled to a fluid kept in " p1110ICS but they have exactly the same set of difficulties, and we need not therefore dwell on them. We must now remark, however, that the opinion of its being inextinguishable by water could not justly have been applied to any corn Position of this 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 under the protection of a carcass or tube of some kind ; in which case it must also have contained nitre. That there is here a good deal of imagination or ignorance in the reports, is indeed plain. The Florentine monk who describes the siege of Acre says : I'ereat 8 utinam ignis Inijus vena, Non enim extinguitur aqua sed arena, Vixque vinum acidum arctat ejus pccna, Et urina 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 impossible ; 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 of Acre was neither the Chinese oil, nor any oil, nor any viscid substance, nor even the composition de scribed by our celebrated female historian. As this writer was an eye-witness, having been present at this famous siege, his account is 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 ordnance ; and that these inventions are also carried back to a period which justifies the account of the Arabian author of 1249 quoted by Casiri.