Cover image created by transcriber and placed in the public domain.

GUNPOWDER AND
AMMUNITION

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

STRAY MILITARY PAPERS. With 2 Plates. 8vo, 7s. 6d
LUCIAN, THE SYRIAN SATIRIST. 8vo, 5s. net.
THE OUTLINES OF QUATERNIONS. Crown 8vo, 10s.
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY

GUNPOWDER AND
AMMUNITION
THEIR ORIGIN AND PROGRESS

BY
LIEUT.-COLONEL HENRY W. L. HIME
(LATE) ROYAL ARTILLERY
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY
1904
All rights reserved

CONTENTS

TABLES

BOOKS OFTEN QUOTED

The following works are frequently quoted, and are only designated by the author’s name. Thus, “Elliot,” ii. 75, means Sir H. M. Elliot’s “Hist. of India, as told, &c. &c.,” vol. ii. p. 75.

Bacon, Roger, Opera quædam hactenus inedita, ed. by Professor Brewer; Rolls Series, 1859.

Berthelot, M. P. E., La Chimie au Moyen Age, Paris, 1893.

Brackenbury, Lieut.-General Sir H., G.C.B., “Ancient Cannon in Europe,” in vols. iv. and v. of Proceed. Roy. Artillery Institution, Woolwich, 1865-6.

Elliot, Sir H. M., “Hist. of India, as told by its own Historians,” ed. by Professor J. Dowson, M.R.A.S., London, 1867-77.

Jähns, Oberst-Lieut. M., Handbuch einer Geschichte des Kriegswesens, Leipsig, 1880.

Napoleon III., Études sur le Passé et l’Avenir de l’Artillerie, Paris, 1846-71.

Nye, Master-Gunner N., “Art of Gunnery,” to which is added a “Treatise on Artificial Fireworks” (separately paginated), London, 1647.

Reinaud (Professor) et Favé (Capitaine), Du Feu Grégeois, &c., Paris, 1845.

Romocki, S. J. von, Geschichte der Explosivstoffe, Hanover, 1895.

Whitehorne, P., “Certain Waies for the ordering of Souldiers in Battelray,” London, 1560.

PART I

THE ORIGIN OF GUNPOWDER

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

I

Much discussion has been caused in the past by the vagueness of the word gunpowder. The following are the meanings which this and a few other words bear in these pages:—

Explosion.—The sudden and violent generation, with a loud noise and in a time inappreciable by the unaided senses, of a very great volume of gas, by the combustion of a body occupying a comparatively very small volume.

Progressive Combustion.—Combustion which takes place in a time appreciable by the unaided senses, such as that of rocket composition or a bit of paper.

Gunpowder.—A mixture of saltpetre, charcoal, and sulphur, which explodes. The signs of its explosion are a bright flash, a loud noise, and a large volume of smoke.

Incendiary (for “incendiary composition”).—A substance or mixture which burns progressively, although fiercely, and is hard to put out.

Machine always means an apparatus of the ballista type.

Cannon includes bombards, mortars, guns, &c.

Musket includes all hand firearms charged with gunpowder.

II

Of the many difficulties that beset the present inquiry, two deserve special mention.

The first is the want of simple exactness in most early writers when recording the facts from which we have to draw our conclusions. At times their descriptions are so meagre that it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide whether certain projectiles were incendiary or explosive. At other times they abound in tropes and figures of speech which amount to an unintentional suggestio falsi. “The missiles spread themselves abroad like a cloud,” says a Spanish Arab; “they roar like thunder; they flame like a furnace; they reduce everything to ashes.”[1] A projectile full of blazing Greek fire appeared to Joinville to be of portentous bulk. It flew through the midnight sky with thundering noise like a fiery dragon, followed by a long trail of flame; and it illumined the whole camp as with the light of day.[2] Even to approach the truth, we must prune such figures of rhetoric; and this is a dangerous operation, for we may prune too much. The only safeguard against these suggestive metaphors is to keep steadily in view the distinctive peculiarities of incendiary and explosive projectiles.

The incendiary shell was simply an envelope intended to convey into the interior of a fort, ship, &c., a quantity of combustible matter, which burned with such violence as to set fire to everything inflammable that was near it. The primary object of the explosive shell, on the other hand, was to blow up whatever it fell upon. It might occasionally, by the intense heat generated by the explosion,[3] set fire to its surroundings when inflammable; but this was a mere incidental consequence of its action. Its aim and end was to explode.

When a musket or cannon was fired there was a bright flash, a loud, momentary report, and a large volume of smoke.[4] When an incendiary missile was discharged from a machine there was no flash, but little smoke, and the only sounds were the whizzing and sputtering of the burning mixture and the creaking and groaning of bolts, spars, ropes, &c.:—

“With grisly soune out goth the greté gonne.”[5]

An explosive missile made its way through the air with little noise[6] and less light:[7] during its flight the blazing contents of the incendiary shell doubtless gave out much light and made a considerable noise, as described by many early writers. When an explosive shell reached its object there was, sooner or later (if it acted at all), an explosion, occasionally followed by a conflagration: an incendiary shell produced a conflagration only.

The second difficulty arises from the change of meaning which many technical words have undergone in the lapse of years.

The Arabic word barúd originally meant hail, was afterwards applied to saltpetre, and finally came to signify gunpowder. Our own word powder, which at first meant a fine, floury dust (pulvis), is often used in the present day to designate the stringy nitrocelluloid, cordite—smokeless powder. The Chinese word yo means gunpowder now, although its first meaning was a drug or plant. For centuries gunpowder was called kraut in Germany, and to this day it is called kruid in Holland. The Danish krud has not long become obsolete.

The present Chinese word for firearm, huo p’áu, originally meant a machine for throwing blazing incendiary matter. The Arabic word bundúq at first meant a hazel-nut, secondly a clay-pellet the size of a hazel-nut, thirdly a bullet, and finally a firearm.[8] The Latin nochus, a hazel-nut, is used, strange to say, to designate a smoke-ball by an old German military writer, Konrad Kyeser, whose “Bellifortis” dates from 1405.[9] The word was also applied in Germany to bullets in general, and more particularly to projectiles discharged by machines.

The word Artillery, both in France and England, originally meant bows and arrows. In his original account of the battle of Cressy, Froissart calls the apparatus and bolts of the Genoese crossbowmen leur artillerie; while a few lines further on he speaks of the kanons of the English.[10] Ascham, writing in 1571, says: “Artillerie nowadays is taken for two things: gunnes and bowes.”[11] Selden reminds us that gonne, our present gun, at first meant a machine of the ballista type.[12] It is used in this sense in “Kyng Alisaunder,” 3268, written A.D. 1275-1300, and other metrical romances. Like the Arabic bundúq, the word is occasionally applied to the projectile, as in the “Avowing of Arthur,” st. 65. It is used in the modern sense, as cannon, in the “Vision of Piers the Plowman,” Passus xxi, C text, 293, a poem begun in 1362 and finally revised by its author in 1390; and in all three meanings by Chaucer, in poems written during the last quarter of the fourteenth century;—as a machine in the “Romaunt of the Rose,” 4176, as a projectile in the “Legende of Good Women,” 637, and as a cannon in the “Hous of Fame,” 533.

“When the thing is perceived, the idea conceived,” says Professor Whitney, “(men) find in the existing resources of speech the means of its expression—a name which formerly belonged to something else in some way akin to it; a combination of words,” &c.[13] For example, a word, W, which has always been the name of a thing, M, is applied to some new thing, N, which has been devised for the same use as M and answers the purpose better.[14] W thus represents both M and N for an indefinite time,[15] until M eventually drops into disuse and W comes to mean N and N only. The confusion necessarily arising from the equivocal meaning of W during this indefinite period, is entirely due, of course, to neglect of Horace’s advice to coin new names for new things.[16] Had a new name been given to N from the first, no difficulty could possibly have ensued, and our way would have been straight and clear. But as matters have fallen out, not only have we to determine whether W means M or N, whenever it is used during the transition period,[17] but we have to meet the arguments of those, never far off, who insist that because W meant N finally, it must have meant N at some bygone time when history and probability alike show that it meant M and M only. Examples, enough and to spare, of such arguments will be met with shortly.

In consequence of the change of meaning which many military words have suffered, no translation of passages in foreign books containing ambiguous words should be relied upon, if access to the originals, or faithful copies of them, can be obtained. As an example of the necessity for this precaution, let us compare a few sentences relating to the siege of Jerusalem, A.D. 70, from the “Polychronicon” of Higden (d. cir. 1363), Rolls Series, iv. 429 ff., with the translations of them by Trevisa, 1385, and by the author of MS. Harl. No. 2261, of A.D. 1432-50.

A

(1) Inde Vespasianus ictu arietis murum conturbat (Higden).

(2) Thanne Vaspacianus destourbed the wal with the stroke of an engyne (Trevisa).

(3) Wherefore Vespasian troublede the walle soore with gunnes and other engynes (MS. Harl.).

B

(1) Josephus tamen ardenti oleo superjecto omnia machinamenta exussit (Higden).

(2) But Joseph threwe out brennynge oyle uppon alle her gynnes and smoot all her gynnes (Trevisa).

(3) Then Josephus destroyede alle theire instruments in castenge brennenge oyle on hit (MS. Harl.).

C

(1) Quo viso tanta vis telorum ex parte Titi proruit, ut unius de sociis Josephi occipitium lapide percussum ultra tertium stadium excuteretur (Higden).

(2) Whan that was i-seie there fil so gret strenthe of castynge and of schot of Titus his side, that the noble knyght of oon of Josephus his felowes was i-smyte of that place with a stoon and flewe over the thrydde forlong (Trevisa).

(3) Titus perceyvenge that, sende furthe a sawte and schotte gunnes to the walles in so much that the hynder parte of the hedde of a man stondenge by Josephus was smyten by the space of thre forlonges (MS. Harl.).

D

(1) Admotis tandem arietibus ad templum (Higden).

(2) At the laste the engynes were remeved toward the temple (Trevisa).

(3) Titus causede his gunners to schote at the Temple (MS. Harl.).

No suspicion rests upon either of these translators; yet, were the original lost, a covert allusion to cannon might be discovered in Trevisa’s translation of B and C, and the Harleian translation of A, C, and D would be put forward as proof positive of their use.

III

The claims of the Greeks to the invention of gunpowder are examined in Chap. III. Chap. IV. is an inquiry into the nature and authorship of the Liber Ignium of Marcus Græcus. The claims of the Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, and English are considered in Chaps. V.-VIII. In Part II. the progress of Ammunition is very briefly traced from the introduction of cannon to the introduction of breechloading arms.

As the book is addressed to the officers of the Army, who seldom have a library at command, the authorities for the statements of important facts are generally given at length. On all controversial points, when a foreign authority is quoted the original[18] is given as well as the translation. I have endeavoured to acknowledge my obligation in all cases where quotations have been borrowed from others without verification.

The invention of gunpowder was impossible until the properties of saltpetre had become known. We proceed, therefore, in the following chapter to determine the approximate date of the discovery of this salt.

CHAPTER II
SALTPETRE

The attention of the ancients was naturally attracted by the efflorescences which form on certain stones, on walls, and in caves and cellars; and the Hindus and nomad Arabs must have noticed the deflagration of at least one of them when a fire was lit on it. These efflorescences consist of various salts,—sulphate and carbonate of soda, chloride of sodium, saltpetre, &c.—but they are so similar in appearance and taste, the only two criteria known in primitive times,[19] that early observers succeeded in discriminating only one of them, common salt, from the rest. So close, in fact, is the resemblance between potash and soda, that their radical difference was only finally established by Du Hamel in 1736. Common salt received a distinctive name in remote times; all other salts were grouped together under such vague generic names as nitrum, natron, afro-nitron, &c.

No trace of saltpetre has hitherto been found anywhere before the thirteenth century. The Greek alchemists of preceding centuries are silent. There is no saltpetre in the earliest recipe we possess for Greek fire, No. 26 of the Liber Ignium,[20] ascribed to one Marcus Græcus, either as given in the Paris MSS. of 1300, or in the Munich MS. of 1438. It is true that the phrase sal coctus in this recipe has been translated by saltpetre in M. Hœfer’s untrustworthy Histoire de la Chimie, but as MM. Reinaud and Favé remark: “Rien n’autorise à traduire ainsi; le sel ordinaire a été souvent employé dans les artifices.”[21] There is no instance in Latin, I believe, of saltpetre being designated otherwise than by sal petræ (or petrosus), or by nitrum, singly or in combination with some other word, as spuma nitri. The substitution of sal petræ for sal coctus, in later editions of the recipe, only shows that when the valuable properties of saltpetre became known it was employed instead of common salt. The very fact of the change having been made by most of the later alchemists, proves that to them sal coctus did not mean sal petræ, but something else. If sal coctus had meant sal petræ, what need was there for the change? This change, however, was not universal. In the version of recipe 26, given in the Livre de Canonnerie et Artifice de Feu, published in Paris in 1561, but written long before by a fire-worker well acquainted with saltpetre, we find: “prenez soufre vif, tarte, farcocoly (sarcocolla), peghel (pitch), sarcosti (sal coctum), &c.”[22] The word coquo (to boil or evaporate) was necessarily connected with the preparation of common salt by evaporation,[23] and coctus would correctly distinguish evaporated or artificial salt from natural or rock salt. In his “Natural History,” xxxi. 39 (7), Pliny tells us that salt is found round the edges of certain lakes in Sicily which are partially dried up in summer by the heat of the sun; while in Phrygia, where much greater evaporation takes place (ubi largius coquitur), a lake is dried up (and salt is deposited) to its very middle. Sal coctus was salt recovered from salt water by natural or artificial heat, as distinguished from natural, or rock salt, which was dug out of the ground.[24]

The Arab alchemists before the thirteenth century are as silent as the Greeks: nothing that can be identified with saltpetre is to be found in their voluminous works. The evidence of Geber, so often cited to prove that saltpetre was known to the Arabs in the ninth century, has been stripped of all authority by M. Berthelot, who has satisfactorily proved that there were two Gebers. The real Arab, Jabir, says nothing of saltpetre, but he mentions a salve used by naphtha-throwers[25] as a safeguard against burns. The other Geber, or pseudo-Jabir, was acquainted with saltpetre, as well he might be; for he was a western who lived some time about the year 1300,[26] and wrote a number of Latin works falsely purporting to be translations from the Arabic of the real Jabir. All doubt about the matter has been removed by M. Berthelot’s publication of the real Jabir’s Arabic writings.[27] It has been also suspected that the sal Indicus of the Liber Sacerdotum, cir. tenth century,[28] a salt again mentioned in the Liber Secretorum of Bubacar, cir. 1000,[29] means saltpetre. Both these works are translations from the Arabic or Persian,[30] and sal Indicus is the literal translation of the Persian—نمك هندي (nimaki Hindi) = نمك سياه (nimaki siyah) = salt of bitumen; a substance of the same family as the “salt of naphtha” also mentioned by Bubacar.

There is no word for saltpetre in classical Sanskrit, sauverchala being a generic term for natural salts, which corresponded to, and was as comprehensive as the nitrum, spuma nitri, &c., of the West. “Recent Sanskrit formulæ for the preparation of mineral acids containing nitre, mention this salt under the name of soraka. This word, however, is not met with in any Sanskrit dictionary, and is evidently Sanskritised from the vernacular sora, a term of foreign origin.”[31] Both Professor H. H. Wilson and Professor M. Williams, in their Sanskrit dictionaries, “erroneously render yavakshara as saltpetre, as also does Colebrooke in his ‘Amara-kosha.’”[32] The word means impure carbonate of potash obtained by the incineration of barley straw.[33]

At length, however, notwithstanding coarse scales and clumsy apparatus, the want of all means of registering time and temperature, and the absence of any general principle to guide them in their researches, the alchemists succeeded in differentiating certain natural salts from the rest, and among them saltpetre. The Chinese were acquainted with it about the middle of the thirteenth century.[34] Abd Allah ibn al-Baythar, who died at Damascus in 1248, tells us that the flower of the stone of Assos was called Chinese snow by the Egyptian physicians and barūd (i.e. saltpetre) by the (Arab) people of the West.[35] Friar Bacon, whose De Secretis was written before 1249, and Hassan er-Rammah who wrote 1275-95, were thoroughly acquainted with the salt. A grand chemical discovery had been made, and saltpetre became known from China to Spain.

The Egyptians thought fit to call saltpetre “Chinese snow,” but this does not justify the conclusion that the discovery was made by the Chinese. Consider our own phrases “Jerusalem” artichoke, “Welsh” onion, and “Turkey” cock. Jerusalem is a gardener’s corruption of girasole, the Turkey came from America, and the home of the Welsh onion is Siberia. The Persians called their native alkaline salt jamadi Chini, and no one will suggest that this substance came from China.

It is evident from the way in which it is mentioned by the alchemists of the thirteenth century, and from their primitive methods of refining it, that saltpetre was then in its infancy. Roger Bacon speaks of it as one would speak of a substance recently discovered and still little known—“that salt which is called saltpetre” (illius salis qui sal petræ vocatur).[36] Marcus Græcus thought it necessary to explain what the word means, in his 14th recipe which probably belongs to the latter years of the thirteenth century.[37] The methods of refining the salt given by Marcus and Hassan leave no possible doubt that in their time it had but just come into use. It is true that Bacon’s method was much superior, if the solution of his steganogram given in Chap. viii. be accepted. But it would have been past all explanation had the method of the greatest natural philosopher of the age been found to be no better than that of an Arabic druggist or a European fireworker.

As the matter is one of the greatest importance, the methods of all three are given in full, together with that of Whitehorne, 1560. The Waltham Abbey method is added, as a standard by which to judge them. To admit of easy comparison, the corresponding operations are marked with the same letter. The five methods are summed up in Table I.

Waltham Abbey, 1860.

A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre.[38]

Natural saltpetre is dissolved in boiling water, the insoluble impurities removed, and the solution evaporated by the sun or artificial heat. The solid residue is grough saltpetre, and contains 1 to 10 per cent. of impurities, consisting of the chlorides of potassium and sodium, sulphates of potash, soda, and calcium, vegetable matter, sand, and moisture.

B. Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre.

The grough saltpetre is placed in an open copper with a false bottom; water is added, and heat applied until the mixture boils at 110° C.

C. Removal of the insoluble impurities.

The scum which rises to the surface during this operation is removed by ladles; the sand and heavy impurities fall upon the false bottom, which is removed just before the mixture boils. The boiling is continued until the scum ceases to rise.

D. Second boiling of the solution.

Cold water is added; the solution is boiled for a few minutes, and then allowed to cool somewhat.

E. Filtration.

At 104.5° C. the mother liquid is transferred to a tank with holes in its bottom, closed by filters.

F. Use of wood-ash, charcoal, &c.

If the impurities prevent the liquid from passing freely through the filters, it is treated with glue, wood-ash, or, better, with a little animal charcoal, which seizes on the impurities and rises to the top as scum.

G. Crystallisation.

The mother liquid filters into the crystallising trough at 70.2° to 65.8° C.

H. Stirring the depositing solution.

The solution is kept in constant agitation by poles whilst cooling, in order that it may deposit in minute crystals, called saltpetre flour. Large crystals contain more or less of the impure mother liquid.

I. Washing and drying.

The agitation is discontinued at 25.8° C. and the mother liquid drawn off. The flour is drained on an inclined plane, transferred to a washing vat, where it is washed three times with cold water, and then finally dried.

Whitehorne, 1560.

A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre.

On the bottom of a vessel pierced with “three or fower littell holes” is placed a linen cloth, “or else the end of a broom, or some straw.” A layer of nitrified earth, “a spanne thicknesse,” is laid on this, and on the earth “three fingers’ thicknesse” of a mixture of “two parts of unslacked lime and three of oke asshes, or other asshes.... And so, putting one rewe” of saltpetre alternately with one of the mixture, “you shall fill the tubbe ... within a spanne of (its mouth), and the rest you will fill with water.” The water, on percolating through the mass, drips into a brass cauldron which, when two-thirds full, is boiled “till it come to one-third part or thereabouts. And after take it off and put it to settell in a great vessell,” when it is to be “clarified and from earthe and grosse matter diligentlie purged.”

B. Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre.

The solution is then “taken and boyled of new.”

F. Use of wood-ash, animal charcoal, &c.

When the solution boils and throws up scum, it is treated with a mixture of “3 parts of oke asshes and 1 of lime, together with 4 lbs. of rock alum to every 100 lbs. of the mother liquid.” “In a little time you shall see it alaie, both clear and fair and of an azure colour.”

C. Removal of insoluble impurities.

The heavy impurities, which sink to the bottom, are got rid of by pouring the clarified mother liquid into another vessel.

G. Crystallisation.

“Take it out and put it in vessels of woode or of earth that are rough within, with certain sticks of wood, to congeal.”

I. Washing and drying.

“This same saltpeter being taken from the sides of the vessel where it congealed, and in the water thereof washed, you must lay it upon a table to drie throughly.”

F´.[39] Use of wood-ash, animal charcoal, &c.

“Minding to have (saltpetre) above the common use, for some purpose, more purified, &c. (which for to make exceeding fine powder, or aqua fortis, is most requisite so to be):—take of the aforesaid mixture (F) ... and for every barrel of water you have put in the cauldron ... you must put into it five potfulls” of the mixture. “In the same quantity of water so prepared, put so much saltpeter as it will dissolve.”

D. Second boiling of the solution.

Boil the whole until it “resolve very well.”

E. Filtration.

When the scum rises, transfer the mother liquid to a tub with holes in the bottom, on which is laid a linen cloth covered with a layer of sand four finger-breadths deep.

D´. Third boiling of the solution.

The filtered liquid is boiled again “in order to make the greater part of the water seeth away.... Make it boil so much until you see it ready to thicken, pouring in now and then a little of the mixture” (F).

G´. Final crystallisation.

The mother liquid is then transferred to wooden troughs “to congeal,” for which three or four days are allowed. “After this sort thou shalt make the saltpeter most white and fair, and much better than at the first setting.”

“Liber Ignium,” cir. 1300.

A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre.

If natural saltpetre is dissolved in boiling water, cleansed, and passed through a filter, and boiled for a day and a night; the (grough) saltpetre will be found deposited in crystals at the bottom of the vessel.

The original is as follows:—

“Nota, quod sal petrosum est minera terræ et reperitur in scrophulis contra lapides. Hæc terra dissolvitur in aqua bulliente, postea depurata et distillata per filtrum et permittatur per diem et noctem integram decoqui, et invenies in fundo laminas salis conielatas cristallinas.”[40]

Hassan er-Rammah, 1275-95.

A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre.

“Take white, clean, bright (natural) saltpetre ad lib., and two new (earthen) jars. Put the saltpetre into one of them, and add some water. Put the jar on a gentle fire until it gets warm” (and the saltpetre dissolves. Skim off) “the scum that rises” (and) “throw it away. Stir up the fire until the liquid becomes quite clear. Then pour it into the other jar in such a way that no scum remains attached to it. Place this jar on a low fire until the contents begin to coagulate. Then take it off the fire, and beat (the crystals) gently.”

F. Use of wood-ash, animal charcoal, &c.

“Take dry willow wood, burn it, and plunge it into water according to the recipe for its incineration. Take three parts by weight of the saltpetre” (just obtained), “and the third of a part of the wood-ash, which has been carefully pulverised, and put the mixture into a jar—if made of brass, so much the better.”

B. Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre.

“Add water and apply heat, until the ashes and saltpetre no longer adhere together. Beware of sparks.”

The original is as follows:—[41]

باب
صثة حل البارود

يوخذ البارود الابيض النقى النارى مهما اردت وتاخذ
طاجنين جدد ويحط فى الطاجن الواحد ويغمر بالماء ويوقد
عليه نار لينة حتى يفتر وتطلع رغوته فارمها واوقد تحته جيدا
حتى يروق ماؤه الى غاية ويقلب الماء الرايق قى طاجن اخر
بحيث لا يتراك من التفل شى ويوخذ عليه وقدا لطيفا الى
ان يجمد وتشيله وتصحنه ناعما ويوخذ الحطب الصفصاف
اليابس يحرق ويغمر على صفة الحراق ويزن من البارود
الثلثين والثلث من رماد الفحع الذى صحنته بالميزان ويعاد
الى الطاجنين وان كانت الاعادة فى طاجن نحاس فهو اجود
ويعمل عليه قليل ماء وتحمصه بحيث ان لا يلتزق واحذو من
شرر النار

Roger Bacon, cir. 1248.

A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre.

Carefully wash the natural saltpetre, and (as far as possible) remove all impurities. Dissolve it in water over a gentle fire, and boil it until the scum ceases to rise, and it is purified and clarified. Let the operation be repeated again and again, until the solution is clear and bright. Let it then deposit its crystals of the stone which is not a stone,[42] and dry them in a warm place.

B. Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre.

Pulverise the crystals of grough saltpetre thus obtained, and immerse them in water. Make a powder of two purifying substances in the proportion of 3:2. Dissolve the crystals over a gentle fire.

F. Use of wood-ash, charcoal, &c.

To the powder add some animal charcoal, and thoroughly incorporate the ingredients (in a vessel). Then pour the hot solution upon it, and your object (of clarifying the mother liquid) will be gained.

C. Removal of the insoluble impurities.

If (by its appearance and taste you judge that) the solution is good, pour it out (into a crystallising vessel, leaving the heavy impurities behind).

G. Crystallisation.

(The mother liquid is now allowed to crystallise.)

H. Stirring the depositing solution.

(While depositing), stir the solution with a pestle. Collect the crystals as best you can, and gradually draw off the mother liquid.

The original is as follows:—

Calcem diligenter purifica, ut fiat terra pura penitus liberata ab aliis elementis. Dissolvatur in aqua cum igne levi, ut decoquatur quatenus separetur pinguedo sua, donec purgatur et dealbetur. Iteretur distillatio donec rectificetur: rectificationis novissima signa sunt candor et crystallina serenitas. Ex hac aqua materia congelatur. Lapis vero Aristotelis, qui non est lapis, ponitur in pyramide in loco calido.

Accipe lapidem et calcina ipsum. In fine parum commisce de aqua dulci; et medicinam laxativam compone de duabus rebus quarum proportio melior est in sesquialtera proportione. Resolve ad ignem et mollius calefac. Mixto ex Phœnice adjunge, et incorpora per fortem motum; cui si liquor calidus adhibeatur, habebis propositum ultimum. Evacuato quod bonum est. Regyra cum pistillo, et congrega materiam ut potes, et aquam separa paulatim.[43]

TABLE I.

Methods of Refining Saltpetre.

A = Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre.
B = Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre.
C = Removal of insoluble impurities.
D = Second boiling of the solution.
E = Filtration.
F = Use of wood-ash, animal charcoal, &c.
G = Crystallisation.
H = Stirring the depositing solution.
I = Washing and drying.

The simple and highly probable conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing facts is, that saltpetre was not discovered until the second quarter of the thirteenth century; but this conclusion is not universally accepted. It is said by some that although saltpetre was unknown to the rest of the world until then, it had been secretly used by the Greeks for five hundred years. This theory will be examined in the following chapter.

CHAPTER III
THE GREEKS

Homer knew nothing apparently of incendiary compositions. When the Trojans set fire to the Greek ships, he certainly says that they burned with “unquenchable flame” (ἀσβέστη φλόξ), Iliad, xvi. 123; but this is a mere figure of speech, for presently afterwards he tells us that Patroclus extinguished the fire (κατὰ δ’ ἔσβεσεν αἰθόμενον πῦρ), 293.

The Assyrian bas-reliefs in the British Museum prove that liquid fire was used in warfare in very remote times. Whether the Greeks adopted its use from the Orientals or originated it themselves, there is little evidence to show; but traces of it are found at an early date, for instance at the siege of Syracuse,[44] 413 B.C., and the siege of Rhodes,[45] 304 B.C. Vessels full of burning matter were thrown, at first by hand, from walls and the tops of forts upon besiegers; and when shell of suitable construction had been devised, these missiles were discharged from machines.

The earliest instance of the use of firearms by the Greeks is found in Thucydides, ii. 75, where it is stated that at the siege of Platæa, 429 B.C., the Platæans found it necessary to protect a wooden wall by skins and hides against the fire-arrows (πυρφόροις ὀïστοῖς) of their Peloponnesian besiegers. By the time of the Roman Empire, fire-arrows were so well known as to be mentioned by the Latin poets,[46] and the historians speak of fire-lances which were discharged from machines[47] (adactæ tormentis ardentes hastæ). Vegetius, who lived in the fourth century A.D., gives the composition of fire-arrows;[48] and Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived about the same time, points out their defects. First, the fire-arrow had to be discharged with a low velocity—ictu enim rapidiore extinguitur; it was extinguished by the cooling effect of the air when discharged with the full force of the bow. Secondly, in addition to its low velocity (and consequently limited range) it was extinguished when covered with clay.[49] However, the composition was easy to light and hard to put out—even with clay or vinegar; its viscosity enabled it to stick to the body it struck; and, becoming more and more fluid from the heat of combustion, it “spread like wild-fire.”

But the use of incendiaries was not confined to grenades and arrows. At the siege of Platæa, just referred to, the Spartans piled up faggots of brushwood against the walls, and, after pouring a mixture of sulphur and pitch on the heap, set fire to it in order to burn the town.[50] They would have gained their object but for a rainstorm which put out the fire. We have here perhaps the earliest historical account of the composition of an incendiary—429 B.C. At the siege of Delium, 424 B.C., a tree was cut down and hollowed out, so as to form a tube, and from one end of it, which was protected by a covering of iron, was hung a cauldron containing a burning mixture of charcoal, sulphur, and pitch. Into this cauldron was introduced an iron bellows-pipe, leading from the end of the tree from which it hung. Having transported the machine close to the wall of the town (the cauldron to the front), the besiegers inserted the snout of a large bellows into the other end of the hollowed tree, and blew them. A great flame was thus produced; the wall, in which there was much wood, was set on fire; the heat of the fire and the vapour of the incendiary drove the defenders from the walls, and the town fell.[51] Its simplicity shows that the mixture belongs to the infancy of incendiaries in Greece.

We meet with fire-ships as early as 413 B.C., when the Syracusians employed one ineffectually against the Athenian fleet;[52] and a special incendiary for naval use is recommended by Æneas, the tactician, about 350 B.C. It consisted of sulphur, pitch, incense, pine-wood, and tow. The mixture was stowed in egg-shaped, wooden vessels, admirably adapted for their purpose, which were thrown lighted upon the enemy’s decks.[53]

TABLE II.

Greek Fires.

In such ways were incendiaries employed by the Greeks for nearly eleven centuries after the siege of Platæa. During this long period the composition was of course improved, and the mixture of the seventh century A.D. burned more fiercely, and was harder to put out than that of the fourth century B.C.; but nevertheless the two mixtures were of the same species. At length, in the decade 670-80, a new species was devised. For the sake of clearness, the old incendiary mixtures will henceforward be called Greek fire; the new one “sea-fire.”

We are told by Theophanes in his “Chronography,” written 811-815, that in the year 673 an architect called Kallinikos[64] fled from Heliopolis in Syria to the Romans (i.e. Constantinople), and eventually compounded a “sea-fire” which enabled them to burn large numbers of the Moslem vessels engaged in the Seven Years’ War,[65] 671-677. This incendiary was again employed with success against the Moslems during their second attack against Constantinople, 717, and at the decisive naval victory over the Russians under Igor in 941. The evidence of Theophanes about Kallinikos is corroborated almost verbally by the Emperor Constantine VII., Porphyrogenitus, in Chap. xlviii. of his “Administration of the Empire”: “Be it known that under the reign of Constantine Pogonatus (668-685) one Kallinikos, who fled from Heliopolis to the Romans, prepared a ‘wet-fire’ to be discharged from siphons, by means of which the Romans burned the fleet of the Saracens at Cyzicus and gained the victory.”[66] It is true that when writing to his son (in Chap. xiii. of the same work) the Emperor gives (or tells his son to give) a different version of the invention of sea-fire: “If any persons venture to inquire of you how this fire is prepared, withstand them and dismiss them with some such answer as this—that the secret was revealed by an angel to the first Emperor Constantine” (A.D. 323-337).[67] But this passage only proves that the Emperor was mendacious and his people superstitious. There can be little doubt that this great invention was made by a Greek for the Greeks in the decade 670-680; but what was the nature of the mixture? All we know for certain about it is that it was a State secret, was intended for sea service, burned with much noise and vapour, and was projected from siphons. In other words, the mixture fulfilled the following conditions:—

(1) Its composition could be kept secret.

(2) It had some close connection with the sea, or water.

(3) It burned with much noise and smoke.

(4) It had some close connection with siphons, or tubes.

The fact that the sea-fire was made a State secret proves that it did not belong to the same family as the Greek fire of Æneas and Vegetius which, in one form or another, had been known all over the East from time immemorial. It was a new mixture—i.e. either a mixture containing some substance not hitherto known, or a mixture of known substances not hitherto combined together for warlike purposes. Many hold that an unknown substance was employed, and, further, that it was no other than saltpetre. We might, of course, fall back on the conclusion established in Chap. ii., and reply that saltpetre was not discovered until the thirteenth century and could not have been used as an ingredient of an incendiary in the seventh century. But the conclusion drawn in Chap. ii. was not a certain one: it was there characterised as highly probable. Saltpetre might possibly have been employed, and a belief which is shared in by some good writers deserves respectful consideration. We have, therefore, to investigate how far a saltpetre mixture would satisfy the above four conditions.

There was absolutely nothing to attract public attention in the purchase from time to time of common, well-known substances, such as sulphur, quicklime, naphtha, &c. &c., by the authorities of the Arsenal; but the suspicions of the spies and traitors, always to be found in Constantinople,[68] would have been instantly roused by the importation of any new or rare substance such as saltpetre. And whence could saltpetre have come? M. Berthelot recognises the importance of this question, although he cannot answer it: “Comment se procurait-on le salpêtre?... Aucun renseignment n’est venu nous l’apprendre. Ce point pourtant est capital.”[69] Saltpetre would naturally have been obtained from the countries where it was most abundant and cheapest—from the East; but the Greeks could not have relied upon this source of supply, for whenever political complications arose between the Emperor and the Caliph—and they were interminable—the ports of Egypt and Syria were closed against Greek ships. However, saltpetre did not grow in the streets of Constantinople: the natural salt (if used) must have been collected somewhere, and sold to Government by someone, and transported somehow to the capital; and what despot could have tied the tongues of collectors, merchants, sailors, and porters? The mere facts that only one State trafficked in saltpetre, that this State only bought it in time of war, and that this State alone employed sea-fire, would have immediately betrayed the secret of its composition to these men, and what was known to them was known to the world. It is most improbable that the use of saltpetre could have been concealed for one year, much less the five hundred years during which the secret of the sea-fire was successfully guarded. I may be reminded of the Emperor Constantine VII.’s statement (in Chap. xiii. of his “Administration, &c.”), that on one occasion a Roman general, corrupted by a large bribe, did reveal the secret and shortly afterwards, when entering a church, was consumed by fire which fell from heaven upon him. The story is obviously legendary. The venal general is as unreal as the fire from heaven; he is merely introduced to us as “an awful example,” and we cannot endow him with reality by rejecting the fire. The claim of the Marquess Carabbas to reality is not established by denying the existence of Puss-in-Boots. Had the secret been divulged the sea-fire would have been used against the Greeks, and no mixture that can be identified with it ever was.

A saltpetre mixture, then, would not, in all probability, have fulfilled the first condition, nor would it have fulfilled the second. There is no conceivable connection between saltpetre and the sea, or water in general. A saltpetre mixture (of suitable proportions) would have proved a much better incendiary than Greek fire, but it would have acted as effectively from a fort as from a ship. Indeed, if we consider the ill effect of the moist sea air on the impure saltpetre of early times, we are justified in saying that the action of such mixtures on land would have been better, in general, than at sea.

A saltpetre mixture would have fulfilled the third condition by burning with much noise and smoke, which we may suppose to be the essential meaning of the Emperor Leo’s phrase, “thunder and smoke.”[70] We cannot reasonably attach greater significance to one of the commonest of all metaphors, thunder, which has been applied times unnumbered to the human voice, to the bursting of a child’s cracker,[71] and to the whirring of a dart. “Never burst such peals from the thunder-cloud,” says Vergil, as were produced by the javelin thrown by Æneas.[72]

As regards the fourth condition, the above statement of the Emperor Constantine about sea-fire and siphons[73] completely justifies us in concluding that there was some necessary connection between the two things. Now, there was no necessary connection between saltpetre mixtures, even when explosive, and siphons. Small quantities of such mixtures could have been, and eventually were, thrown by hand, in grenades, like Greek fire. Saltpetre mixtures, therefore, would not have fulfilled the fourth condition.

The result of the foregoing inquiry is, that a saltpetre mixture would have only fulfilled one, the third, of the four conditions to which the sea-fire was subject; and we have now to cast about for some mixture of known substances, not hitherto combined together for warlike purposes, which would have fulfilled them all.

A clue to the composition of the Kallinikos mixture may perhaps be found in its Greek name, “sea-fire” or “wet-fire.” One substance had long been known with whose combustion water was closely connected—quicklime, and with its properties Kallinikos, as an architect, must have been perfectly familiar. Its temperature rises—to 150° C. (302° F.) if the quantity be large—when sprinkled with water, and it can consequently be employed to ignite substances with low points of ignition. For example, if a mixture of quicklime and naphtha be thrown into water, the rapid rise in temperature of the lime causes a sudden and strong development of vapour from the naphtha, which on mixing with the air becomes highly explosive. Such a mixture, it is almost unnecessary to add, could not be handled with safety after it has been wet. Plutarch was aware of the explosive nature of naphtha vapour. “Naphtha,” he says, “is like bitumen, and is so easy to set on fire that, without touching it with any flame, it will catch light from the rays which are sent forth from a fire, burning the air which is between both.”[74] Pliny speaks of the heat developed by quicklime when sprinkled with water. “It is strange,” he says, “that what has already been burnt should be ignited by water” (mirum aliquid, postquam arserit, accendi aquis).[75] The same property is implicitly referred to in the “Kestoi,” attributed to Sextus Julius Africanus of Emaus, who lived under Alexander Severus, 222-235. The military portions of this work, however, must have been written long afterwards, in the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century at the earliest; for Belisarius, who was born in 505, is mentioned in the sixty-sixth chapter.[76] In the forty-fifth chapter there is a recipe for a quicklime-asphalt composition, which is called “automatic fire.” This mixture was used by jugglers to exhibit “spontaneous combustion,” a little water being secretly poured on a plate on which a ball of the composition was placed.[77] It contained very little quicklime (παντελῶς ὀλίγον). Cameniata tells us that at the storming of Salonika in 904 the Moslems threw “pitch and torches and quicklime” over the walls.[78] By “quicklime” he probably meant the earthenware hand grenades, filled with wet quicklime, described by the Emperor Leo, who then sat on the throne (886-911). “The vapour of the quicklime,” he says, “when the pots are broken, stifles and chokes the enemy and distracts his soldiers.”[79]

The simplest and most probable explanation of the nature of the sea-fire then is, that it was a sulphur-quicklime-naphtha mixture of the same family as those shown in the following Table.

TABLE III.

Sea-Fires.

N.B.—None of these mixtures professes to be the official Greek sea-fire, the exact composition of which is unknown; but the “De Mirabilibus” mixture is probably a close approximation to it. Although called sea-fires here, they were not so called by their western authors, who were ignorant of the use and even of the name of sea-fire. The first four recipes are described as mixtures which will ignite “when rain falls upon them.” Hartlieb alone foresaw that such mixtures would ignite “if thrown upon water.”

Such a mixture would have completely fulfilled the four conditions already mentioned. First, the secret of its composition was easy to keep, since it lay in the choice and proportions of known ingredients; not in the use of one special and unknown substance (such as saltpetre), smuggled privily into the Arsenal[85] with a mystery which was certain to excite the curiosity of a people who “spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.” Secondly, it was literally a “sea-fire” or “wet-fire,”—a fire which was ignited by water and which burned on its surface. Thirdly, its combustion gave rise to a considerable volume of vapour and a series of small explosions in the air. Fourthly, from the mode of its combustion it was unsafe to handle after ignition, and it was necessarily discharged from siphons. This simple explanation of the sea-fire[86] sweeps away the insurmountable difficulties raised by the saltpetre theory. We have no longer to believe in the patriotic silence of Byzantine officials, workmen and sailors, maintained for five hundred years; we have no longer to admit reluctantly that saltpetre was known in Greece, where it occurs in comparatively scanty quantity, five hundred years before it was known in the great natural storehouse of this salt, Asia; we have no longer to suspect the whole body of Greek writers on alchemy and pharmacy, from the seventh to the thirteenth century, of having entered into a vast conspiracy of silence to hide their knowledge of saltpetre from the barbarians; we are no longer left wondering whence the Greeks got their saltpetre, and why they gave the name of “sea-fire” to a mixture in no way connected with the sea; and we are no longer perplexed by the fact that the earliest recipes for Greek fire contain no saltpetre.[87]

It remains to inquire how the sea-fire was expelled from the siphons.

There were two kinds of siphons, large siphons and hand-siphons.

Of the hand-siphons there were several patterns. Some seem to have been thrown by hand, like squibs;[88] from others, mentioned by Cameniata, the charge was projected by air[89]—presumably by a bellows or some such contrivance; while in a third kind, described by the Princess Anna, a pellet was blown by the breath through a flame placed before the front end of the tube.[90] The two latter siphons were of the same species, and as Anna’s was charged with Greek fire[91] we may suppose Cameniata’s took a similar charge.

The large sea-fire siphon was fixed in the bow of the ship and served by the two foremost rowers, one of whom laid the siphon and was called the siphonator, while the other, we may suppose, loaded it. The siphon was mounted on a swivel, as may be gathered from the account given by the Princess Anna of the naval battle fought near the island of Rhodes in 1103 by the Greeks and the Pisans. The latter were terrified, she says, by an apparatus which directed on them fire of an extraordinary nature. “Ordinary flame rises upwards, but this flame shot downwards and sideways as well, at the will of the gunner.”[92] Unless the siphon was mounted on a swivel, the phrase which I have translated by “at the will of the gunner” (ἐφ’ ἃ βούλεται ὁ πέμπων) would be meaningless.

In his Recherche sur le Feu Grégeois, p. 23, M. Chrétien-Lalanne maintains that the incendiary was expelled from the siphon by means of a spring. This theory is inadmissible, for helical springs are not heard of until long after the time in question. Further, the ancients possessed no means of condensing air to the degree necessary for the projection of a heavy body over even the short ranges of the Dark Ages, and steam power had hardly been recognised at all.[93] Therefore, it has been urged, the incendiary must have been expelled from the siphon by means of an explosive saltpetre mixture, this being the only way of effecting the object that remained at the disposal of the ancients. As will be seen presently, there remained a simple and efficacious method, involving very little expense and no danger whatever; a fact which in itself would be sufficient to meet the above argument in favour of saltpetre, even were it unsupported by the evidence already brought forward in Chap. ii. to show that saltpetre had not been yet discovered at the time in question, and the evidence adduced in the present chapter to prove that in fact it was not used. Further, the supposition that an explosive was employed is excluded by the construction of the siphon, which was made of wood. Such is the only reasonable explanation that can be given of the Emperor Leo’s order that the siphons should be “cased with bronze.”[94] Had they been of metal, a casing of bronze would have been a useless complication; but, being of wood, an internal casing of metal was absolutely necessary to protect them from the flame of the burning composition. Only one round probably could have been fired from a wooden tube by means of an explosive, and that round in most cases would have been more fatal to the siphon detachment than to the enemy.

Again, as the projectile was simply a lump of oleaginous matter, it would have been blown by an explosive cartridge into thousands of fragments, each of them so small as to be worthless for incendiary purposes; for the efficacy of an incendiary depends to a great extent on its containing a large quantity of matter.

Since the use of springs, compressed air, and steam were impossible, and the use of an explosive extremely improbable, it only remains to examine the arguments for and against water as the motive power.

The Emperor Leo VI. speaks of the “artificial fire discharged by means of siphons;”[95] the Emperor Constantine VII. speaks similarly of “the wet-fire projected by means of siphons;”[96] and if we translate siphon by tube both phrases are intelligible, but neither gives any hint as to the means by which the mixture was expelled from the tubes. But like so many other military words, siphon has (at least) two meanings, and signifies not only a tube, but a fire-engine, or water-engine, or squirt. Heron of Alexandria (cir. 130 B.C.) begins his description of a fire-engine with the words: “The siphons used for the extinction of fire are made as follows.”[97] Pliny the Younger (cir. 100 A.D.), in a letter to the Emperor Trajan about a fire which had taken place in the town of Nicomedia, observes that “there was not a sipho, nor even a bucket, at hand to quench it.”[98] Hesychius in his Greek Lexicon, about the end of the fourth century, gives under σίφων: “an apparatus for pumping water in conflagrations.”[99] If we translate siphon by water-engine, as we are perfectly justified in doing, we find that the phrases used by the two Emperors are not only intelligible, but indicate both the mode of projection and the mode of ignition of the sea-fire. The lump of quicklime-naphtha-sulphur was projected, and at the same time ignited, by applying the hose of a water-engine to the breech of the tube, which thus became an integral part of the apparatus to which it gave its name.

Two obscure passages in Byzantine works, which hitherto have never been satisfactorily explained, are made clear by this interpretation. The first occurs in the “Tactics” of Constantine VIII., where he directs “‘flexible’ (apparatus) with (artificial) fire, siphons, hand-siphons, and manjaniks” to be employed, if they are at hand, against any tower that may be advanced against the wall of a besieged town.[100] The “flexible” apparatus cannot refer to the helical springs of a later age. Neither can it mean crossbows, for the Princess Anna, who wrote a century after Constantine, expressly says: “The crossbow (tzangra) is a foreign weapon (hitherto) unknown in the Greek service.”[101] That it cannot mean longbows is quite certain from the second of the obscure passages in question, which occurs in the “Alexiad”: “In the bow of each ship he (the Admiral) put the heads of lions and other land animals, made of brass and iron, gilt, so as to be (quite) frightful to look at; and he arranged that from their mouths, which were (wide) open, should issue the fire to be delivered by the soldiers by means of (or through) the ‘flexible’ apparatus.”[102] The enemy might have exclaimed with the Jewish king: “They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and as a roaring lion.” But whatever the moral effect of these trumpery scarecrows—if ever actually used—it is certain that archers with longbows could not have shot fire-arrows through them with any success; and the meaning of Emperor and Princess remains hidden until we interpret “flexible instrument” as the leathern hose of a pump or water-engine, than which nothing can be more flexible. The import of both passages then becomes perfectly plain. Such a mode of discharging incendiaries is by no means unknown in later military history. “Dans une expérience faite au Havre, 1758, avec une pompe à huile de naphte, dont le jet était enflammé par une mèche allumée, on brûla même une chaloupe.”[103] At the siege of Charleston, 1863, not only was solidified Greek fire in tin tubes employed,[104] but coal naphtha placed in shells or pumped through hose.[105] Finally, M. Berthelot speaks of “les propositions faites, pendant le siège de Paris (1870), pour repousser les ennemis au moyen de pompes projetant des jets de pétrole enflammé. Mais cet agent ... n’a été mis réellement à l’épreuve que par la Commune, pour brûler nos palais.”[106]

When the Crusades began in 1097 Greeks were thus in possession of two species of incendiaries: the sea-fire which was distinctively and exclusively Greek, and the old mixture of the Æneas family which was known all over the East. Yet it was to the latter that the name “Greek fire” was given by the Crusaders, who, I believe, had neither experience nor knowledge of the sea-fire. The only passage I can recall among the old writers in which the two fires are discriminated and correctly named occurs in the metrical romance

“Richard Coer-de-Lion,” temp. Edward I. (1272-1307):—

“Kyng Richard, oute of hys galye,

Caste wylde-fyr into the skye

And fyr Gregeys into the see.

.....

The see brent all off fyr Gregeys” (2627).[107]

Historically this passage is probably worthless; but, whether deliberately or by accident, the poet indicates the real distinction between the two fires. It was the sea-fire, the true Greek fire, which was thrown or fell into the sea; while the wild-fire, misnamed “Greek fire” by the Crusaders, was flung “into the sky” to descend on the heads of the enemy. In the preceding pages I have adopted the Crusaders’ nomenclature, because it is now too late to rectify their blunder.

During the siege of Stirling Castle, 1304, Edward I. “gave orders for the employment of Greek fire, with which he had probably become acquainted in the East.”[108] It was also made use of by the Flemish engineer, Crab, who took an active part in the defence of Berwick when besieged by Edward II. in 1319:—

“And pyk (pitch) and ter (tar) als haiff thai tane,

And lynt (fat) and herdes (refuse of flax) and brymstane,

And dry treyis (trees or wood) that wele wald brin (burn).”[109]

We again made use of Greek fire in the defence of the Castle of Breteuil, and in the attack on the Castle of Romorentin, in 1356;[110] but no record remains of its composition or of the way in which it was projected. It was no doubt similar to Whitehorne’s wild-fire of 1560, given in Table II. As late as 1571 Greek fire was poured down on the heads of the Turks, in the primitive fashion, by the Venetians in the defence of Famagusta.[111]

The phrase “Greek fire” never took root in England, where “wild-fire” was early substituted for it. Wild-fire is found in Robert of Gloucester’s “Chronicle,”[112] of the same date as “Richard Coer-de-Lion.” According to the Promptorium Parvulorum, an English-Latin dictionary compiled in 1440 by Galfridus, a Dominican of Lynn Episcopi in Norfolk, the phrases “Greek fire” and “wild-fire” were then synonymous; for he gives as the Latin equivalents of the latter—“ignis Pelasgus, vel ignis pelagus, vel ignis Græcus.” Among the ammunition supplied to the troops sent to Scotland under Lord Lennox in 1545, we find “xx tronckes charged with wylde fyer.”[113] Whitehorne gives a plate of these tronckes or trombes, which were hollow wooden cylinders, “as bigge as a man’s thigh and the length of an ell,” filled with the mixture given in Table II. for the sixteenth century. In Phillips’ English Dictionary, 1706, wild-fire is described as (1) “a sort of fire invented by the Grecians about A.C. 777,” and (2) “gunpowder rolled up wet and set on fire.” It is used in the latter sense in “Robinson Crusoe,” published in 1719. Before an attack on the Indians, the sailors “made some wild-fire ... by wetting a little powder in the palms of their hands” (Part ii. chap. 21). The word is only heard now in the phrase “spreads like wildfire.”

But though its names have passed away, the thing remains. Greek fire was used at the siege of Charleston in 1863; in 1870 M. Berthelot watched its effects when thrown into Paris by German guns; we ourselves possess it to this day in our Carcass composition.[114] The sea-fire, on the other hand, was comparatively short-lived, and I can find no certain evidence of its employment after the year 1200. Its disappearance is easily accounted for. From about the middle of the eleventh century the Byzantines began to show signs of an ever-increasing disinclination for war-service either afloat or ashore,[115] a want of national honour and military energy which Mr. Finlay ascribes to “a general deficiency of common honesty and personal courage;”[116] and this moral degeneracy threw naval duties more and more into the hands of the Venetians and other foreign mercenaries, to whom the Government may have been unwilling to make known the secret of the sea-fire. This state of things did not escape the notice of Benjamin of Tudela, a Jewish traveller of the twelfth century: “(Les Grecs) entretiennent des soldats à gages de toutes les Nations qu’ils appellent Barbares, pour faire la guerre au Roi des Peuples de Togarma appellez Turcs. Car les Grecs eux-mêmes n’ont ni cœur ni courage pour la guerre. Aussi sont-ils reputez comme les femmes qui n’ont aucune force pour combattre.”[117] Matters came to a crisis in 1200: in this year Michael Struphnos, the admiral commanding, sold the naval stores at Constantinople and appropriated the proceeds of the sale.[118] When, therefore, the pious warriors of the Fourth Crusade turned their arms against their fellow-Christians and beleaguered the city in April 1204, there was no sea-fire at hand for use against their ships, and an attempt to burn them by means of sixteen ordinary fire-ships was foiled by the activity of the Venetian sailors.[119] The accession of the Latin dynasty to the throne of Constantinople in this year was a serious hindrance to the reemployment of sea-fire. The Latins were ignorant of its composition, and they were not likely to gain information upon the subject from the few Greeks who were acquainted with it; for these Christians did not love one another. Finally, saltpetre was discovered not many years afterwards, and its substitution for customary ingredients in the later editions of existing “Fire-books”[120] proves that it was utilised without delay for Greek fire, which thus became a more formidable incendiary than sea-fire.

The Greeks had no hand in the invention of cannon. One of their historians of the fifteenth century, when speculating on the subject in his narrative for the year 1389, says the Germans were commonly believed to have been the inventors.[121] Could the Greeks, then, have been in possession of saltpetre-mixtures many centuries before? Is it credible that people with intellect as keen as the Greeks employed an explosive for long ages without hitting upon the idea of metal guns? Yet judging from the manner in which Chalcocondyles speaks of cannon in his narrative for 1446, they were even then but little known to the Greeks. “Cannon,” he tells his countrymen, “are formidable instruments, which no armour can resist, and which penetrates through everything.”[122] No historian of the ability of Chalcocondyles would have spoken in this manner about an arm which was well known.

The fact that the first recorded use of fire-arrows on Greek soil was made by Persian archers,[123] lends some probability to the view that Greek fire was originally borrowed from the East; but the Greeks assuredly invented the sea-fire which was the palladium of the Empire for several centuries. To the discovery of saltpetre they have no legitimate claim. The claim put forward in their name is based partly on a metaphor,[124] partly on the assumption that the effects of sea-fire could have been only produced by a mixture containing saltpetre; and it cannot be sustained. The hypothesis that Kallinikos compounded a saltpetre mixture ignores the highly probable conclusion that saltpetre was not discovered until the thirteenth century;[125] fails to explain some statements, and is irreconcilable with other statements made by the ancients; and involves many incredible consequences.

It may be objected that this conclusion has been arrived at without taking the evidence of the chief witness for the Greeks, Marcus Græcus. Let us examine his Liber Ignium.

CHAPTER IV
MARCUS GRÆCUS

(Du Theil’s text[126] with Berthelot’s numeration)

Incipit Liber Ignium a Marco Græco descriptus, cuius virtus et efficacia ad comburendos hostes tam in mari quam in terra plurimum efficax reperitur; quorum primus hic est.

1. Recipe sandaracæ puræ libram I., armoniaci liquidi ana. Haec simul pista et in vase fictili vitreato et luto sapientiæ diligenter obturato deinde (?); donec liquescat ignis subponatur. Liquoris vero istius haec sunt signa, ut ligno intromisso per foramen ad modum butyri videatur. Postea vero IV. libras de alkitran græco infundas. Haec autem sub tecto fieri prohibeantur, quum periculum immineret. Cum autem in mari ex ipso operari volueris, de pelle caprina accipies utrem, et in ipsum de hoc oleo libras II. intromittas. Si hostes prope fuerint, intromittes minus, si vero remoti fuerint, plus mittes. Postea vero utrem ad veru ferreum ligabis, lignum adversus veru grossitudinem faciens. Ipsum veru inferius sepo perungues, lignum prædictum in ripa succendes, et sub utre locabis. Tunc vero oleum sub veru et super lignum distillans accensum super aquas discurret, et quidquid obviam fuerit concremabit.

2. Et sequitur alia species ignis quæ comburit domos inimicorum in montibus sitas, aut in aliis locis, si libet. Recipe balsami sive petrolii libram I., medulæ cannæ ferulæ libras sex, sulphuris libram I., pinguedinis arietinæ liquefactæ libram I., et oleum terebenthinæ sive de lateribus vel anethorum. Omnibus his collectis sagittam quadrifidam faciens de confectione prædicta replebis. Igne autem intus reposito, in aërem cum arcu emittes; ibi enim sepo liquefacto et confectione succensa, quocumque loco cecidit, comburit illum; et si aqua superjecta fuerit, augmentabitur flamma ignis.

3. Alius modus ignis ad comburendos hostes ubique sitos. Recipe balsamum, oleum Æthiopiæ, alkitran et oleum sulphuris. Haec quidem omnia in vase fictili reposita in fimo diebus XIV. subfodias. Quo inde extracto, corvos eodem perunguens ad hostilia loca sive tentoria destinabis. Oriente enim sole, ubicumque illud liquefactum fuerit, accendetur. Unde semper ante solis ortum aut post occasum ipsius præcipimus esse mittendos.

4. Oleum vero sulphuris sic fit. Recipe sulphuris uncias quattuor, quibus in marmoreo lapide contritis et in pulverum redactis, oleum iuniperi quattuor uncias admisces et in caldario pone, ut, lento igne supposito, destillare incipiat.

5. Modus autem ad idem. Recipe sulphuris splendidi quattuor uncias, vitella ovorum quinquaginti unum contrita, et in patella ferrea lento igne coquantur; et quum ardere inceperit, in altera parte patellae declinans, quod liquidius emanabit, ipsum est quod quæris, oleum scilicet sulphuricum.

6. Sequitur alia species ignis, cum qua, si opus, subeas hostiles domus vicinas. Recipe alkitran, boni, olei ovorum, sulphuris quod leviter frangitur ana unciam unam. Quæ quidem omnia commisceantur. Pista et ad prunas appone. Quum autem commixta fuerint, ad collectionem totius confectionis quartem partem ceræ novæ adicies, ut in modum cataplasmatis convertatur. Quum autem operari volueris, vesicam bovis vento repletam accipias et in foramen in ea faciens cera supposita ipsam obturabis. Vesica tali præscripta sæpissime oleo peruncta cum ligno marubii, quod ad haec invenietur aptius, accenso ac simul imposito, foramen aperies; ea enim semel accensa et a filtro quo involuta fuerit extracta, in ventosa nocti sub lecto vel tecto inimici tui supponatur. Quocumque enim ventus eam sufflaverit, quidquid propinquum fuerit, comburetur; et si aqua projecta fuerit, letales procreabit flammas.

7.Sub pacis namque specie missis nuntiis, ad loca hostilia bacleos gerentes excavos hac materia repletos et confectione, qui jam prope hostes fuerint, quo fungebuntur ignem jam per domos et vias fundentes. Dum calor solis supervenerit, omnia incendio comburentur.[127]

Recipe sandaracae (libram, cerae)[128] libram: in vase vero fictili, ore concluso, liquescat. Quum autem liquefacta fuerint, medietatem libræ olei lini et sulphuris superadjicies. Quæ quidem omnia in eodem vase tribus mensibus in fimo ovino reponantur, verum tamen fimum ter in mense renovando.

8. Ignis quem invenit Aristoteles quum cum Alexandro ad obscura loca iter ageret, volens in eo per mensem fieri id quod sol in anno præparat. Ut in spera de auricalco, recipe seris rubicundi libram I., stanni et plumbi, limaturæ ferri, singulorum medietatem libræ. Quibus pariter liquefactis, ad modum astrolabii lamina formetur lata et rotunda. Ipsam eodem igne perunctam X. diebus siccabis, duodecies iterando: per annum namque integrum ignis idem succensus nullatenus deficiet. Quæ enim inunctio ultra annum durabit. Si vero locum quempiam inunguere libeat, eo desiccato, scintilla quælibet diffusa ardebit continue, nec aqua extingui poterit. Et haec est prædicti ignis compositio. Recipe alkitran, colophonii, sulphuris crocei, olei ovorum sulphurici. Sulphur in marmore teratur. Quo facto universum oleum superponas. Deinde tectoris limaginem ad omne pondus acceptum insimul pista et inungue.

9. Et sequitur alia species ignis, quo Aristoteles domos in montibus sitas destruere incendio ait, ut et mons ipse subsideret. Recipe balsami libram I., alkitran libras V., oleum ovorum et calcis non extinctae libras X. Calcem teras cum oleo donec una fiat massa; deinde inunguas lapides ex ipso et herbas ac renascentias quaslibet in diebus canicularibus, et sub fimo eiusdam regionis sub fossa dimittes; postea[129] namque autumnalis pluviæ dilapsu succenditur. Terram et indigenas comburit igne Aristoteles, namque hunc ignem annis IX. durare asserit.

10. Compositio inextinguibilis et experta. Accipe[130] sulphur vivum, colophonium, asphaltum classam, tartarum, piculam navalem, fimum ovinum aut columbinum. Hæc pulverisa subtiliter petroleo; postea in ampulla reponendo vitrea, orificio bene clauso, per dies XV. in fimo calido equino subhumetur, Extracta vero ampulla destillabis oleum in cucurbita lento igne ac cinere mediante, calidissima ac subtili. In quo si bombax intincta fuerit ac accensa, omnia super quæ arcu vel ballista proiecta fuerit, incendio concremabit.

11. Nota quod omnis ignis inextinguibilis IV. rebus extingui vel suffocari poterit, videlicet cum aceto acuto aut cum urina antiqua vel arena, sive filtro ter in aceto imbibito et toties desiccato ignem iam dictum suffocas.

12. Nota quod ignis volatilis in aëre duplex est compositio; quorum primus est:—recipe partem unam colophonii et tantum sulphuris vivi, II. partes vero salis petrosi et in oleo linoso vel lamii[131] quod est melius, dissolvantur bene pulverisata et oleo liquefacta. Postea in canna vel ligno excavo reponatur et accendatur. Evolat enim subito ad quemcumque locum volueris, et omnia incendio concremabit.

13. Secundus modus ignis volatilis hoc modo conficitur. Accipias libram I. sulphuris vivi, libras duas carbonum vitis vel salicis, VI. libras salis petrosi; quae tria subtilissima terantur in lapide marmoreo. Postea pulvis ad libitum in tunica reponatur volatili vel tonitrum faciente.

Nota, quod tunica ad volundum debet esse gracilis et longa et cum prædicto pulvere optime conculcato repleta. Tunica vero tonitrum faciens debet esse brevis et grossa et prædicto pulvere semiplena et ab utraque parte fortissime filo ferreo bene ligata. Nota, quod in tali tunica parvum foramen faciendum est, ut tenta imposita accendatur; quæ tenta in extremitatibus sit gracilis, in medio vero lata et prædicto pulvere repleta. Nota, quod quæ ad volandum tunica, plicaturas ad libitum habere potest; tonitrum vero faciens, quam plurimas plicaturas. Nota, quod duplex poteris facere tonitrum atque duplex volatile instrumentum, videlicet tunicam includendo.

14. Nota, quod sal petrosum est minera terræ et reperitur in scopulis et lapidibus.[132] Haec terra dissolvatur in aqua bulliente, postea depurata et destillata per filtrum, permittatur per diem et noctem integram decoqui; et invenies in fundo laminas salis congelatas cristallinas.

15. Candela quæ, si semel accensa fuerit, non amplius extinguitur. Si vero aqua irrigata fuerit, maius parabit incendium. Formetur sphaera de ære Italico; deinde accipies calcis vivæ partem unam, galbani mediam et cum felle testudinis ad pondus galbani sumpto conficies. Postea cantharides quot volueris accipies, capitibus et alis abscisis, cum aequali parte olei zambac, teras et in vase fictili reposita, XI. diebus sub fimo equino reponantur, de quinto in quintum diem fimum renovando. Sic olei foetidi et crocei spiritum assument, de quo sphæram illinias; qua siccata, sepo inguatur, post igne accendatur.

16. Alia candela que continuum præstat incendium. Vermes noctilucas cum oleo zambac puro teres et in rotunda ponas vitrea, orificio lutato cera Græca et sale combusto bene recluso et in fimo, ut iam dictum est, equino reponenda. Quo soluto, sphæram de ferro Indico vel auricalco undique cum penna illinias; quæ his iuncta et dessiccata igne succendatur et nunquam deficiet. Si vero attingit pluvia, majus præstat incendii incrementum.

17. Alia quæ semel incensa dat lumen diuturnum. Recipe noctilucas quum incipiunt volare, et cum æquali parte olei zambac commixta, XIV. diebus sub fimo fodias equino. Quo inde extracto, ad quartam partem istius assumas felles testudinis, ad sex felles mustelæ, ad medietatem fellis furonis. In fimo repone, ut iam dictum est. Deinde exhibe in quolibet vase lichnum, cujuscumque generis, pone de ligno aut latone vel ferro vel ære. Ea tandem hoc oleo peruncta et accensa diuturnum præstat incendium. Haec autem opera prodigiosa et admiranda Hermes et Tholomeus[133] asserunt.

18. Hoc autem genus candelæ neque in domo clausa nec aperta neque in aqua extingui poterit. Quod est: recipe fel testudinis, fel marini leporis sive lupi aquatici de cuius felle Tyriaca. Quibus insimul collectis quadrupliciter noctilucarum capitibus ac alis præcisis adicies, totumque in vase plumbeo vel vitreo repositum in fimo subfodias equino, ut dictum est, quod extractum oleum recipias. Verum tum cum æquali parte prædictorum fellium et æquali noctilucarum admiscens, sub fimo XI. diebus subfodias per singulares hebdomades fimum renovando; quo iam extracto de radice herbæ que cyrogaleonis[134] et noctilucis pabulum factum, ex hoc liquore medium superfundas. Quod si volueris, omnia repone in vase vitreo et eodem ordine fit. Quolibet enim loco repositum fuerit, continuum præstat incendium.

19. Candela quæ in domo relucet ut argentum. Recipe lacertam nigram vel viridem, cuius caudam amputa et desicca; nam in cauda eius argenti vivi silicem reperies. Deinde quodcumque lichnum in illo illinitum ac involutum in lampade locabis vitrea aut ferrea, qua accensa mox domus argenteum induet colorem, et quicumque in domo illa erit, ad modum argenti relucebit.

20. Ut domus quælibet viridem induat colorem et aviculæ coloris ejusdem volent. Recipe cerebrum aviculæ in panno involvens tentam et baculum, inde faciens vel pabulum in lampade viridi novo oleo olivarum accendatur.

21. Ut ignem manibus gestare possis sine ulla læsione. Cum aqua fabarum calida calx dissolvatur, modicum terræ Messinæ, postea parum malvæ visci adicies. Quibus insimul commixtis palmam illinias et desiccari permittas.

22. Ut aliquis sine læsione comburi videatur. Alceam cum albumine ovorum confice, et corpus perungue et desiccari permitte. Deinde coque cum vitellis ovorum iterum, commiscens terendo super pannum lineum. Postea sulphur pulverisatum superaspergens accende.

23. Candela quæ, quum aliquis in manibus apertis tenuerit, cito extinguitur; si vero clausis, ignis subito renitebitur: et haec millies, si vis, poteris facere. Recipe nucem Indicam vel castaneam, eam aqua camphoræ conficias, et manus cum eo inungue, et fiet confestim.

24. Confectio visci est cum si aqua projecta fuerit, accendetur ex toto. Recipe calcem vivam, eamque cum modico gummi Arabici et oleo in vase candido cum sulphure confice; ex quo factum viscum et aqua aspersa accendetur. Hac vero confectione domus quælibet adveniente pluvia accendetur.

25. Lapis qui dicitur petra solis in domo locandus, et appositus lapidi qui dicitur albacarimum (alba ceraunia?). Lapis quidem niger est et rotundus, candidas vero habens notas, ex quo vero lux solaris serenissimus procedit radius. Quem si in domo dimiseris, non minor quam ex candelis cereis splendor procedit. Hic in loco sublimi positus et aqua compositus relucet valde.

26. Ignem Græcum tali modo facies. Recipe sulphur vivum, tartarum, sarcocollam et picem, sal coctum, oleum petroleum et oleum gemmæ. Facias bullire invicem omnia ista bene. Postea impone stuppam et accende, quod, si volueris, exhibere (poteris ?) per embotum ut supra diximus.[135] Stuppa illinita non extinguetur, nisi urina vel aceto vel arena.

27. Aquam ardentem sic facies. Recipe vinum nigrum spissum et vetus et in una quarta ipsius distemperabuntur unciæ II. sulphuris vivi subtilissime pulverisati, lib. II. tartari extracti a bono vino albo, unciæ II. salis communis; et subdita ponas in cucurbita bene plumbata et alembico supposito destillabis aquam ardentem quam servare debes in vase clauso vitreo.

28. Experimentum mirabile quod fecit homines ire in igne sini læsione vel etiam portare ignem vel ferrum calidum in manu. Recipe succum bisvalvæ et albumen ovi et semen psillii et calcem et pulverisa; et confice cum albumine succis (?) raphani et commisce. Et ex hac commixtione illinias corpus tuum et manum et desiccare permitte et post iterum illinias; et tunc poteris audacter sustinere sine nocumento.

29. Si autem velis ut videatur comburi, tunc accenditur sulphur, nec nocebit ei.

30. Candela accensa quæ tantam reddit flammam quæ crines vel vestes tenentis eam comburit. Recipe terebenthinam et destilla per alembicum aquam ardentem, quam impones in vino cui applicatur candela et ardebit ipsa.

31. Recipe colophonium et picem subtilissime tritum et ibi cum tunica proicies in ignem vel in flammam candelæ.

32. Ignis volantis in aëre triplex est compositio. Quorum primus fit de sale petroso et sulphure et oleo lini, quibus tritis, distemperatis et in canna positis et accensis, poterit in aërem sufflari.

33. Alius ignis volans in aëre fit ex sale petroso et sulphure vivo et ex carbonibus vitis vel salicis; quibus mixtis et in tenta de papiro facta positis et accensis, mox in aërem volat. Et nota, quod respectu sulphuris debes ponere tres partes de carbonibus, et respectu carbonum tres partes salpetræ.

34. Carbunculum gemmæ lumen præstantem sic facies. Recipe noctilucas quam plurimas; ipsas conteras in ampulla vitrea et in fimo equino calido sepelias et permorari permittas per XV. dies. Postea ipsas remotas destillabis per alembicum et ipsam aquam in cristallo reponas concavo.

35. Candela durabilis maxime ingeniosa fit. Fiat archa plumbea vel ænea omnino plena intus et in fundo locetur canale gracile tendens ad candelabrum, et præstabit lumen continuum oleo durante.

Explicit liber Ignium.

Chemical Index.[136]

M. Berthelot (i. 100 ff.) gives the best existing text of the foregoing tract, founded on Paris MSS. 7156 and 7158 collated with the Munich MS. 267. He adds extracts from the Munich MS. 197, dated 1438. Herr von Romocki gives the text reproduced here and the Nürnberg MS. of a somewhat later date than the Paris MSS., say 1350.[137]

A glance at the text given here shows that, far from being a formal and connected treatise, it is a medley of recipes thrown together with very little method and without any literary skill. Of the thirty-five recipes (in Du Theil’s MS.) fourteen are war mixtures, six relate to the extinction of incendiaries or the prevention and cure of burns, eleven are for lamps, lights, &c., and four describe the preparation of certain chemicals—one of them, No. 14, giving a mode of refining saltpetre. The war mixtures consist of nine recipes for various fires, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 24, and 26; one for fire-arrow composition, No. 10; and four for rockets and Roman candles (including a “cracker”), Nos. 12, 13, 32, and 33. Nos. 9, 15, and 24 contain quicklime; 12, 13, 14, 32, and 33 contain saltpetre.

A closer examination leads to the conclusion that the tract is the work of neither one author nor one period. As we read of such ingredients as weasel’s gall (17) and paste of glow-worms (16); of the mercury to be found in black and green lizards’ tails (19); of the mixture which ignites incontinently at sunrise, wherewith crows are to be anointed and despatched against the enemy (3), we seem to hear the chant of the witches in “Macbeth”:—

“Eye of newt and toe of frog,

Wool of bat and tongue of dog,

Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting,

Lizard’s leg and owlet’s wing.”

These recipes embody the same traditions as the war recipes of the “Kestoi” of Sextus Julius Africanus, which belong to the seventh century. But on turning to Nos. 32 and 33, we find recipes as precise and formal as those of Hassan er-Rammah, who wrote in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. The description of the rocket and its composition (13) is as definite and intelligible as many a recipe of the seventeenth century: recipes 8 and 17, with their allusions to Hermes, the mythical Alexander the Great, Aristotle the wizard and Ptolemy the magician, belong to a far earlier period. In short, the extraordinary contrast in style and matter, phraseology and diction, between certain recipes and others, leads irresistibly to the conclusion that the oldest recipes are separated from the youngest by several centuries, and that the tract (as we possess it) was not the work of one man, but of several. There is a kernel of old recipes, to which others were added from time to time. This conclusion receives strong support from the fact that no two of the MSS. are of the same length. The Munich MS. contains twenty-two, Berthelot’s text thirty-five, and the Nürnberg MS. twenty-five recipes.

The best judges date the oldest existing MSS., Paris, 7156 and 7158, at about 1300 A.D., and Abd Allah tells us that saltpetre was known to the Spanish Arabs in the second quarter of the thirteenth century.[138] The saltpetre recipes, therefore, 12, 13, 14, 32, 33, lie between the years 1225 and 1300. We shall call them, for convenience of reference, the “Late Recipes.”

No one who carefully studies the remaining recipes can fail to observe that many of them are marked by archaism of style, form and matter, and that they hand down to us ancient alchemical traditions, or traces of them; while others display no such peculiarities. Let us then, again for mere convenience, divide them into two series—the “Early Recipes,” which possess these peculiarities, and the “Middle Recipes,” which do not. To what periods do these two series belong?

No. 26, apparently the most modern of the Middle Recipes, will presently be shown to belong to the early part of the thirteenth century, and, as it does not contain saltpetre, its approximate date is 1200-1225. There is no evidence, so far as I am aware, which would enable us to fix the beginning of the Middle or the end of the Early Recipes. The matter, happily, is immaterial; it is sufficient for us to know that the former series is undoubtedly subsequent to the latter, and (as will be shown) quite independent of it.

For a reason which will appear presently, the date of the oldest of the Early Recipes depends upon the period at which Moslems began to write upon alchemy. According to Arab authorities,[139] the first Moslem who wrote on the subject was Prince Khalid ibn Yazeed ibn Moawyah, who died in 708. After him came the real Jabir, of the eighth or ninth century; but Masudi, in the tenth century, tells us that there were many other writers on alchemy whose names are now lost.[140] The very earliest date, then, that can be assigned to the oldest of the Early Recipes is the eighth century, say 750.

The three series are as follows:—

Looking from the chemical point of view, M. Berthelot divides the recipes into six groups.[141] Those who are interested in the matter will find on examination that, chronologically, his groups harmonise perfectly with the three series given here.

The reader will observe on a cursory examination of the Latin text that most of the recipes contain foreign, i.e. non-Latin words; and this fact suggests the question, Is the Liber Ignium an original work or a translation?

The number of foreign words and allusions is so considerable as to leave little doubt that a large part of the tract was translated from some foreign language, and no one, I believe, seriously maintains that the work, as a whole, is original. From what language, then, has it been translated?

We meet with the Greek proper names Hermes, Ptolemy, Alexander and Aristotle, and with a number of Greek words which look like survivals of a Greek original. Among the most prominent are alba ceraunia (?), asphaltum,[142] bombax, cynoglossum (?), orichalcum and sarcocolla, all of which are latinised Greek words. But on looking closely into this evidence we find that it has very little weight. The Greek proper names prove nothing. Hermes and Ptolemy became common property to alchemists of all nationalities in the infancy of alchemy. Alexander the Great’s extraordinary career excited universal wonder, and the many and marvellous legends which grew round his name in the West were only surpassed by those of the East. He and his Wazir, Aristu (Aristotle), were common property long before the Liber Ignium saw the light. The Greek words give no support to the hypothesis of a Greek original unless it can be shown either that they had not previously been adopted by the Latins, or that the tract was written before they were borrowed. A particular instance will make the matter clearer. We took the word harquebus from the French at some period, say p. If harquebus occurs in an English book written after p, its presence raises no presumption that the book was in any way connected with France, or even that its author understood French. If the book was written before p, its author must have had recourse, directly or indirectly, to French sources. Now all the Greek words given above had been latinised long before the Liber Ignium was written, and might have been used by a Latin when translating from any language. Alba ceraunia, asphaltum, bombax, cynoglossum and sarcocolla are found in Pliny’s “Natural History,” first century A.D., and orichalcum occurs in the “Bragging Soldier” of Plautus about the end of the third century B.C. But it is unnecessary to continue the examination of the Greek words contained in the tract for the following reason. A hypothesis must cover all the facts of a case, and some facts in the present case are inexplicable on the theory of a Greek original.

The Greeks had three words for the asphalt family, pissa, asphaltos, and naphtha; and the translator had at least three Latin words (which he has actually used) wherewith to translate them, pix (or picula), asphaltum, and petroleum. How, then, came he to use the barbarism, alkitran Græcum, in recipe 1? The original of this phrase came from no Greek source.

We could not expect the author of the tract to reveal the secret of the sea-fire, which was only known to a few officials; but the mediæval Greeks were not an exceptionally modest people, and we naturally look for some slight allusion to this triumphant incendiary and the siphons in which it was employed. They are never referred to, although ballistæ, bows, and rockets are mentioned in recipes 10, 12, 13, 32, 33.