(eBook PDF) Themes in Roman Society

and Culture: An Introduction to Ancient

Rome
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-themes-in-roman-society-and-culture-a
n-introduction-to-ancient-rome/
 ••
Contents Vll

The Imperial Period and Beyond 237

Summary 239
Questions for Review and Discussion 239
Suggested Reading 239
Note 240

11 Crime, Law, and Order 241

Benjamin Kelly

Introduction 2 4 2
"Crime" in the Roman World 243
Courts, Justice, and Terror 248
Roman "Policing Officials" 250
Self-Help 255
Summary 258
Questions for Review and Discussion 259
Suggested Reading 259
Notes 260

12 Entertainment in the Roman World 263

Michael Carter

Introduction 264
Public Entertainment 265
Ludi 266
Munera 272
The Political Importance of Entertainment Spectacles 2 79
Summary 283
Questions for Review and Discussion 283
Suggested Reading 284
Notes 284

13 The Roman Army 285

Conor Whately

Introduction 286
The Composition of the Roman Army 287
The Legions 287
The Auxiliaries 289
The Praetorian Guard 292
Professionalization and the Roman Army 294
Warfare 296
 •••
Vlll Contents

Preparing for War 296

Battle, Bravado, and Discipline 298
War: The Aftermath 299
The Army and Society 300
The Army and Civilians: Policing and the Abuse of Authority 300
The Army and Civilians: Women and Families 301
The Army as Distinct Society 303
Summary 304
Questions for Review and Discussion 304
Suggested Reading 304
Notes 305

14 Foreign Relations: War and Conquest 307

Greg Fisher

Introduction 307
Foreign Relations and Expansion to the End of the Second Punic War: Concepts
and Themes 309
Roman Expansion in the Second Century BCE: Greed and Fear? 313
The End of the Republic: The Consequences of Conquest 315
Pax Romana: New Enemies 318
The Third Century CE: A Changing Order 321
From Diocletian to Theodosius: Unity and Division 323
Summary 325
Questions for Review and Discussion 326
Suggested Reading 32 7
Notes 328

15 The Economy 329

Matt Gibbs

Introduction 331
Evidence and Theory 331
Demography 333
Land and Property 334
Moneylending and Interest Rates 338
Taxation 340
Production and Trade 344
Summary 349
Questions for Review and Discussion 350
Suggested Reading 350
Notes 352
 •
Contents IX

16 Roman Technology and Engineering 355

Milorad Nikolic

Introduction 356
Terminology and Transfer of Knowledge 357
Technology Assimilated 361
Streets and Bridges 361
Water Transport 363
Concrete 366
Water Supply 368
Instruments 3 7 0
Sources of Energy 3 71
The People behind the Works 373
Summary 374
Questions for Review and Discussion 3 7 S
Suggested Reading 3 75
Notes 377

17 Art and Architecture 378

Beth Munro

Introduction 3 78
Defining Romanness 380
Augustan Rome: Image of an Empire 385
Imperial Dynasties and Dominance 390
Responses to Economic and Social Change 395
Summary 399
Questions for Review and Discussion 400
Suggested Reading 400
Notes 401

Conclusion 402
Epilogue Roman Themes in Modern Society and Popular Culture 404
Appendix Resources for Students 412
Glossary 418
Works Cited 435
Index 450
 re ace an . . . ements
---+-·,--

common desire to provide students of Roman society with readings well suited to the
·ntroductory level inspired the conception of this volume. A communal effort by academ-
ics from classics departments across Canada and beyond has ensured its realization. We would
like to thank all the contributors for their generosity in lending their time and expertise to
this project. Their participation demonstrates the true value that they place on student train-
ing and the perpetuation of Roman studies. We would also like to thank Peter Chambers,
our developmental editor at Oxford University Press, for his excellent advice (of which we
availed ourselves often) and insight through this process; his guidance and good humour
helped us clear innumerable hurdles that would have otherwise been insurmountable. We
extend our special thanks as well to Janna Green, our copy editor; her meticulous reading
and helpful suggestions have fostered clarity, consistency, and completeness. Along with our
publisher, we are indebted to the fallowing reviewers, who provided invaluable comments
and critiques: Daniel Hutter, University of Waterloo; Adam Kemezis, University of Alberta;
Philip Kiernan, University of British Columbia, David Meban, Campion College, University
of Regina; Lionel J . Sanders, Concordia University; Lisa Trentin, Wilfrid Laurier University;
and the three anonymous reviewers. Thanks also go to members of the Classics Students
Association at the University of Winnipeg for their willingness to act as a focus group regard-
ing the shape of the volume, thereby helping us to move from quandary to action.
Matt Gibbs would like to thank Georgy Kantor, who read several sections of this
volume and provided valuable feedback and support; David Hollander for so willingly
sharing his research; and his fellow editors for not only their wisdom and experience but
also their amiability, geniality, and (in particular) infinite patience. He would like to offer
special thanks to Chinta, Livia, and Madeleine (who was born during the final edit of
Chapter 8), who gamely endured this project's intrusion into their lives.
Milorad Nikolic would like to thank John Peter Oleson and John Humphrey for their
excellent advice, enduring support, and valuable feedback, as well as his co-editors for
their energy, insight, patience, and good humour.
Pauline Ripat would like to thank Sinclair Bell, Mark Golden, and Lea Stirling
for their help and advice; her appreciation also goes to her co-editors for sharing this
experience. She thanks her husband, Darren, for being a frequent technical consultant,
sometimes single parent, and consistently supportive partner, and Nicholas and Alex for
allowing this project to be part of their family for such a long time.
Finally, the editors and contributors acknowledge a debt of special gratitude to
those teachers, professors, supervisors, and mentors who first inspired or nurtured their
fascination with Roman society and who, by being role models, taught them how to
teach. It is to them that this volume is dedicated.
 --·+---

The editors and contributors dedicate this volume to the following people, with thanks:

Colin Adams, Elizabeth Archibald, Lawrence Bliquez, Alan Bowman, Keith Bradley,
Peter Burnell, David Campbell, Hubert Cancik, Edward Champlin, Patricia Clark, Janet
Delaine, Ruth Edwards-Thomas, Michele George, Mark Golden, Alain Gowing, Evan
Haley, John Humphrey, Bernard Kavanagh, Andrew Lintott, Iain McDougall, Anthony
Marshall, John Peter Oleson, David Page, Ronald Payne, the late Simon Price, Hanne
Sigismund Nielsen, William Slater, A.M. Stone, Robert Thom, Jackie Tinson, Michael
Walbank, Kathryn Welch, and Haijo Westra.
 ---+-·,--

Andreas Bendlin is an associate professor at the University of Toronto, where he teaches

classics and Roman history His research and publications focus on religion at Rome and
in the Roman empire, Roman cultural and social history, and the history of scholarship.
Recent publications address topics such as Graeco-Roman divination, religious pluralism
in the ancient world, and associations in the Roman world. A monograph on religious
pluralism in ancient Rome in the late Republic and early Empire is forthcoming.

Michael Carter is an associate professor in the Department of Classics at Brock University

His primary research interest relates to the social and cultural significance of mass public
entertainment spectacles, such as gladiatorial contests and similar (Roman) shows. He
is especially interested in the impact that the Greek adoption and adaptation of such
thoroughly Roman spectacles had on Greek society and identity, and he has published
several articles on the topic in journals such as Phoenix, Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und
Epigraphik, and Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies.

Fanny Dolansky is an associate professor in the Department of Classics at Brock

University, where she teaches Latin language and literature, Roman history, and Roman
religion. Her research focuses mainly on the history of the Roman family, particularly
domestic religious rites. She has published articles on the Parentalia (Phoenix, 2011) and
Matronalia festivals (Classical World, 2011); book chapters on the toga virilis ceremony
(2008) and Saturnalia festival (2011); and has a study on children's dolls forthcoming
in Classical Antiquity. She is currently completing a sourcebook on the ancient city of
Rome for Continuum Press (with Stacie Raucci of Union College) and working on a book
manuscript on Roman domestic religion.

Greg Fisher is an associate professor in the Department of History and the Department
of Greek and Roman Studies at Carleton University He is an expert on the Middle East
in late antiquity, and his current research focuses on the political and cultural relation-
ships between states and inhabitants of frontier regions across the late antique world. He
is the author of Between Empires: Arabs, Romans and Sasanians in Late Antiquity (Oxford
University Press, 2011) and the novel The Iranian Conspiracy (FastPencil, Inc., 2011), as
well as the editor of Arabs and the Empires Before Islam (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Matt Gibbs is an assistant professor in the Department of Classics at the University

of Winnipeg. His current research concerns professional associations, taxation, and the
 •••
Contributors XIII

economy of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, as well as the Roman empire generally He also
has research interests in the political history of the late Roman Republic and early Roman
Empire. He has published on professional associations and the economy of Ptolemaic and
Roman Egypt and the Roman empire.

Alison Jeppesen-Wigelsworth is an instructor and learning designer at Red Deer College

and the editor of Cloelia: The Newsletter of the Women)s Classical Caucus. Her research
focuses on the family, with particular emphasis on Roman marriage and the portrayal of
Roman women in inscriptions. She has published in Latomus and Arethusa and is cur-
rently completing a manuscript exploring the changing depiction of Roman wives in
funerary epitaphs.

Benjamin Kelly is an associate professor in the Department of History at York University

His research interests include crime, policing, and the courts in the Roman world. He
is the author of Petitions) Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt (Oxford University
Press, 2011).

Beth Munro is a lecturer at the University of Edinburgh. Until recently, she was a post-
doctoral fellow in Roman archaeology at the University of Manitoba. She has also lectured
in Roman art and architecture at the University of Winnipeg and tutored at The Queens
College and Hertford College at the University of Oxford and at Roehampton University She
is the finds supervisor on the Dorchester-on-Thames archaeological project. Her research
interests include the architecture and decoration of villas and the recycling of stone, glass,
and metals in the imperial and late antique periods. She has published numerous articles
on recycling at villas and on the relationship between marble statuary and lime kilns.

Milorad Nikolic is an assistant professor in the Department of Classics at Memorial

University. He is trained as both a mechanical engineer and a classicist. His research
interests are ancient technology and engineering (more precisely, water supply systems),
ancient technical literature, Greek and Roman art and architecture , and the northern
Roman frontier. He has published on Greek and Roman technical vocabulary

Kelly Olson is an associate professor in the Department of Classical Studies at Western

University. Her research focuses on Roman society, sexuality, and appearance. She is
the author of several articles and book chapters on female clothing in Roman antiquity,
published in Mouseion, The American Journal of Ancient History, Fashion Theory, and
Classical World. Her book Dress and the Roman Woman: Self-Presentation and Society was
published by Routledge in 2008. She is presently working on a monograph entitled Men)
Appearance, and Sexuality in Roman Antiquity.
xiv Contributors

Pauline Ripat is an associate professor in the Department of Classics at the University of

Winnipeg. Her research interests include Roman magic and divination, particularly as they
pertain to social relations and communication. She is the author of several book chapters
and journal articles published in Greece and Rome, Phoenix, and Classical Philology .

Luke Roman is an associate professor of classics at Memorial University. His research

interests include Roman poetry of the late Republic and early Empire, representations
of writing and the material book, the relation between Roman literature and concepts of
monumentality, and Renaissance Latin poetry He has published articles on the epigram-
matist Martial and other Latin poets and is completing a book on the rhetoric of poetic
autonomy in ancient Rome.

Andrew Sherwood is an associate professor of classics at the University of Guelph.

His research interests have led to land and underwater archaeological fieldwork in Italy,
Greece, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Romania. His publications encompass studies of Latin
and Greek epigraphy, Greek and Roman technology, and the excavations of Caesarea
Martima, Israel, and Humayma, Jordan.

Leslie Shumka is an assistant professor of classics at Mount Allison University. Her

research interests include gender and status in Roman antiquity, women in the Roman
economy, and funerary archaeology

John Vanderspoel is a professor of Roman history in the Department of Greek and

Roman Studies at the University of Calgary, where he has taught since 1985. Although
he focuses on the later Roman Empire, he has researched and written extensively on
many aspects and periods of the Roman world. He has published Themistius and the
Imperial Court (University of Michigan Press, 1995) and was a co-editor of The Cambridge
Dictionary of Classical Civilization (Cambridge University Press, 2008). He has written
numerous articles that have appeared in a variety of academic journals and is a founding
editor of The Ancient History Bulletin, for which he currently serves as online editor.

Conor Whately is an assistant professor in the Department of Classics at the University

of Winnipeg. His current research interests include ancient historiography and empire
(particularly frontiers, imperialism, and warfare) in the Roman world. He has con-
tributed several entries to the Encyclopedia of Ancient History (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012),
the Encyclopedia of the Roman Army (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), and the Late Antique
Archaeology volume War in Late Antiquity. He is currently working on two monographs:
a cultural and historiographical study of military narratives in Procopius's Wars and an
examination of the Roman armed forces in Moesia from 2 7 BCE to 33 7 CE.
 --·+---

The translations of ancient sources in this volume use the following common epigraphic,
papyrological, and textual conventions:
• Parentheses () enclose clarifications, supplements, or comments made by the
modern author or editor or expansions of abbreviations that appear in the
original text. They may also indicate parenthetical statements made by the
original author.
• Brackets [ ] enclose damaged or mutilated text; they may also enclose words
that have been restored with certainty.
• An ellipsis in brackets [... ] indicates missing letters or words where
restoration is impossible.
• Angled brackets < > enclose words omitted by the original author or scribe
but added by the modern editor or translator.
• Ellipses ... indicate that part of the ancient source has been omitted by the
modern author.
The reader should note that brackets are used in quotations of modern scholarship to
indicate that a clarification has been made by someone other than the original author.
References to ancient sources generally follow the abbreviations used in The Oxford
Classical Dictionary 1 and the Checklist of Editions of Greek Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri,
2
Ostraca and Tablets , which are explained in the following list. Various print and electronic
translations of these and other ancient works are widely available. In the event that only
one work of a given author is extant, it is the convention to refer to that work by the
authors name (or abbreviation of the author's name) only

AE rAnnee epigraphique
Amm. Marc. Ammianus Marcellinus
App. Appian
B Civ. Bella civilia
Mac. MaKEooviKrj
Pun. Ai{3uKrj
Apul. Apuleius
Flor. Florida
Met. Metamorphoses
Archil. Archilochus
xvi A Note to the Reader

Aristid. Aelius Aristides

Or. Oration es
Arr. Arrian
Epict. diss. Epicteti dissertationes
Art em. Artemidorus Daldianus
Ase. Asconius
Mil. Pro Milone
Auct. ad Her. Auctor ad Herennium
BGU Berliner Griechische Urkunden
BJ Bonner]ahrbucher
BL Preisigke, F, et al. 1922-. Berichtigungsliste der griechischen
Papyrusurkunden aus Agypten. Berlin-Leipzig.
Caes . Caesar
BGall. Bellum Gallicum
Cass . Dio Cassius Dio
Catull. Catullus
CFA Scheid, J. 1998. Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt: Les
copies epigraphiques des protocols annuels de la confrerie arvale (21
av.-304 ap. J.-C.). Collection Roma antica 4 . Rome.
Chrest.Mitt. Grundzuge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, II Bd. Juristischer
Teil, II Halfte Chrestomathie.
Cic. Cicero
Amie. De amicitia
Att. Epistulae ad Atticum
Brut. Brutus or De Claris Oratoribus
Cael. Pro Caelio
De or. De oratore
Div. De divinatione
Dom. De domo sua
Fam. Epistulae ad f amiliares
Fin. De finibus
Flac. Pro Flacco
Har. Resp. De haruspicum responso
Leg. De legibus
Leg. Man. Pro lege Manilia or De imperio Cn.
 ••
A Note to the Reader XVll

Mil. Pro Milone

Nat. D. De natura deorum
Off. De officiis
Orat. Orator ad M. Brutum
Phil. Orationes Philippicae
Q Fr. Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem
Rep. De republica
Rose. Am. Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino
Sen. De senectute
Sest. Pro Sestio
Tusc. Tusculanae disputationes
Vat. In Vatinium
Verr. In Verrem
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CISem. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum
Cod. Codex
Cod. Theod. Codex Theodosianus
Columella
Rust. De re rustica
Dig. Diges ta
Dio Chrys. Dio Chrysostomus
Or. Orationes
Dion. Hal. Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Ant. Rom. Antiquitates Romanae
Comp. De compositione verborum
Euseb. Eusebius
Hist. eccl. Historia ecclesiastica
Eutr. Eutropius
Festus
Gloss. Lat. Glossaria Latina
Frontin. Frontinus
Aq. De aquae ductu urbis Romae
Str. Strategemata
Gai. Gaius
Inst. Institutiones
 •••
XVlll A Note to the Reader

Gell. Aulus Gellius

NA N octes Atticae
Hdn. Herodianus
Heron
Pneum. Pneumatic a
Hor. Horace
Carm. Carmina or Odes
Epist. Epistulae
Sat. Satirae or Sermones
HRRel. Peter, H. 1967. Historicorum romanorum reliquiae. Stuttgart,
Germany
IGRom Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes
ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
Inscr. Ital. Inscriptiones Italiae
IPOstie-A Hylander, H. 1952. Inscriptions du port d'Ostie . Lund.
ISIS Helttula A. 2007. Le iscrizioni sepolcrali latine nell'Isola sacra. Rome.
Jer. Jerome
Ep. Epistulae
Joseph Josephus
BJ Bellum Judaicum
Just. Justinus
Epit. Epitome (of Trogus)
Juv. Juvenal
Lactant. Lactantius
De mart. pers. De mortibus persecutorum
Livy, Epit. Epitomae
Per. Periochae
Luc. Lucan
Lucian
Alex. Alexander
Nav. Navigium
Somn. Somnium
Luer. Lucretius
MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiquae
Mart. Martial
 •
A Note to the Reader XIX

Nep. Nepos
Att. Atticus
Nie. Dam. Nicolaus Damascenus
OGI Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae
Oros. Orosius
Ov. Ovid
Am. Amores
Ars am. Ars amatoria
Fast. Fas ti
Met. Metamorphoses
Tr. Tristia
PAmh. Amherst Papyri
PA then. Papyri Societatis Archaeologicae Atheniensis
Paus . Pausanias
PBour. Les Papyrus Bouriant
PBrem. Die Bremer Papyri
PColon. Kolner Papyri
Pers. Persius
Petron. Petronius
Sat. Satyric a
PEuphrates Documents d'archives romains inedits du Mayen Euphrates
PFay. Fayum Towns and their Papyri
PGen. Les Papyrus de Geneve
PGraux. Papyrus Graux
Philo Philo Judaeus
Leg. Legatio ad Gaium
Plaut. Plautus
Rud. Ru dens
Plin. Pliny the Elder
HN N aturalis historia
Plin. Pliny the Younger
Ep. Epistulae
Pan. Panegyricus
PLond. Greek Papyri in the British Museum
Plut. Plutarch
xx A Note to the Reader

Caes. Caesar
Cat. Mai. Cato Maior
Cat. Min. Cato Minor
Cic. Cicero
Crass. Crassus
Flam. Flamininus
Mar. Marius
Mor. Moralia
Pomp. Pompeius
Pyrrh. Pyrrhus
Rom. Romulus
PMich. Michigan Papyri
PMon. Epiph. The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes
Polyb. Polybius
POxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri
PPetaus Das Archiv des Petaus
Prop . Propertius
PRyl. Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester
PSI Papiri Greci e Latini, Pubblicazioni della Societa italiana per la ricerca
dei papiri greci e latini in Egitto
PTebt. The Tebtunis Papyri
PThmouis Le Papyrus Thmouis 1, colonnes 68 160
PTurner Papyri Greek and Egyptian Edited by Various Hands in Honour of Eric
Gardner Turner on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday
PVind.Bosw. Einige Wiener Papyri
Quint. Quintilian
Inst. Institutio oratoria
RG Monumentum Ancyranum
RMD Roxan, M., and P Holder, eds. Roman Military Diplomas. 5 vols .
Sall. Sallust
Cat. Bellum Catilinae or De Catilinae coniuratione
SB Sammelbuch griechischen Urkunden aus Agypten
SEG Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum
 •
A Note to the Reader XXI

Sel.Pap. II Hunt, A.S., and C.C. Cary, trans. 1934. Select Papyri Volume II:
Public Documents. The Loeb Classical Library 282. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen. Seneca the Younger
Brev. Vit. De brevitate vitae
Clem. De clementia
Constant. De constantia sapientis
Ep. Epistulae
Helv. Ad Helviam
QNat. Quaestiones naturales
SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae
Gall. Gallienus
Hadr. Hadrian
Marc. Marcus
Sev. Severus
Tyr. Trig. Tyranni Triginta
Sor. Soranus
Gyn. Gynaeceia
Stud.Pal. Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde
Suet. Suetonius
Aug. Di vus Augustus
Calig. Caligula
Claud. Divus Claudius
Dom. Domitianus
Galb. Galba
Gram. De grammaticis
Iul. Divus Iulius
Ner. Nero
Tib. Tiberius
Tit. Divus Titus
Vesp. Divus Vespasianus
Tac . Tacitus
Agr. Agricola
xxii A Note to the Reader

Ann. Annales
Dial. Dialogus de oratoribus
Hist. Historiae
Tert. Tertullian
Apol. Apologeticus
Thuc. Thucydides
Tib. Tibullus
T Vindol. Vindolanda: the Latin Writing Tablets
Val. Max. Valerius Maximus
Varro
Ling. De lingua Latina
Rust. De re rustica
Vegetius
Mil. De re militari
Vitr. Vitruvius
De arch. De architectura
Xen. Xenophon
Oec. Oeconomicus

Notes
1 Hornblower, Spawforth, and Eidinow (2012).
2 Oates et al. (201 1). This list, which provides full bibliographic and other useful infor-
mation for papyri, ostraca, and related materials (such as the Vindolanda Tablets), is
available online at http ://library duke. edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/clist.
html.
 his volume aims to introduce students to fundamental aspects of Roman society its
composition, institutions, structures, and cultural products particularly in the per-
iod 200 BCE to 200 CE. While there are several excellent introductions to Roman history
(some of which include a discussion of cultural issues), this book differs from them by
approaching Roman society thematically rather than chronologically In other words, we
do not ask how Rome expanded from a city to an empire but what Roman society looked
like. How was it organized, and what practices, ideas, and social institutions supported
these structures? The chapters of this volume, each of which has been written by an active
researcher and instructor in the field, address these questions with reference to specific
elements of Roman society Our objective is to provide a sense of the relevant evidence
and an assessment of the current state of scholarship, thereby farming a basis for further
study of Roman life or history

Content of This Book

By taking a thematic approach, we have given priority to seminal concepts with the
broadest relevance in the chosen time period. This method means that chapters do not
have to be read in order; however, thought has been put into their arrangement. Chapter
1 offers a sketch of the development of social historical research in the discipline, while
Chapter 2's brief history of Roman political life supplies a broad chronological framework
for the subsequent chapters' discussion. Chapters 3 to 5 introduce the human elements
of Roman society (class and status, slavery, and the household) and their relationships to
each other. Chapters 6 to 8 examine the intellectual life that reflected and perpetuated
Roman social values (education and literature) and the social construction of self and
others (gender and sexuality). Chapter 9 not only considers religion but also acts as a
bridge between the previous chapters' focus on the human components of society and the
next three chapters' discussion regarding the social structures and institutions (govern-
ment, law and order, and entertainment) that governed them, supported social cohesion,
and provided an opportunity for the expression of collective values. Romes relations with
others is the subject of chapters 13 and 14; Chapter 15 looks at economic dynamics .
The final two chapters focus on the physical products of Roman society, technology and
xxiv Themes in Roman Society and Culture

engineering and art and architecture, respectively. Although not given individual chap-
ters, topics such as philosophy, the environment, and Christianity are included where
relevant.
The emphasis on themes also creates some overlap between chapters. A critical aspect
of the study of Roman society is that social structures, institutions, and relationships did
not exist in isolation. In fact, Roman society is best comprehended as the connections
between topics, which often elucidate or provide context for others. For example, inves-
tigations into the importance of slavery in the Roman world must take into account the
household and the economy Meanwhile, neither of these subjects can be understood
without consideration of the presence of slaves. Further associations can be made between
the domestic sphere, social roles, and gender and sexuality The expansion of the empire
also involves various overlapping topics, including the military, technological knowledge,
taxation, and justice. Marginal notes throughout the text draw attention to such links.
Each chapter of this book includes review questions to help solidify knowledge
and develop awareness of the problems surrounding past studies. Annotated suggested
reading lists provide sources for further research, as does the texts appendix. The book
also features a conclusion, which brings together the themes discussed, and an epilogue,
which demonstrates how Roman history continues to influence modern society. Key
terms are balded at their first appearance in each chapter and defined in the glossary
Another area worth noting is the treatment of the terms Roman society, Republic,
and Empire. Roman society may seem rather narrowly defined in this volume, given that
most of the discussion focuses primarily upon the city of Rome, urban life, men, and
citizens (at the expense of provincial communities, rural existence, women, children,
non-citizens, and people from other areas). This uneven treatment is both typical of
introductory volumes and regrettable. It is typical because more attention must be given
to the better documented parts of Roman society in order to study the more elusive ele-
ments. It is regrettable because such a lopsided discussion creates a skewed impression
of Roman society The truth of the matter is that the population of the Roman empire was
one of astonishing variety, and male citizens living in the city of Rome were only a very
small percentage of it. Discussion has been expanded to acknowledge this fact wherever
possible.
An important convention of this volume is the use of Republic and Empire to refer to
the chronological span of the political systems (Rome under the leadership of the senate
in the Republic; Rome under the leadership of the emperor in the Empire) and empire to
refer to the geographical expanse over which Rome had extended political control. One
may speak, therefore, of the empire under the Republic (the physical territory under
Roman rule during the time of the Republic) or of the empire under the Empire (the
physical territory under Roman rule when emperors held power). The term Monarchy is
also used to denote the political system, not the monarch and his or her family
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The analysis of the first German shell indicated that the mustard
gas contained therein had been prepared by the method published by
Victor Meyer (1886) and later used by Clark (1912) in England. It was
natural, therefore, that attention should be turned to the large scale
operation of this method.
The following operations are involved: Ethylene is prepared by the
dehydration of ethyl alcohol. The interaction of hypochlorous acid
(HClO) and ethylene yields ethylene chlorhydrin, ClCH₂CH₂OH.
When this is treated with sodium sulfide, dihydroxyethyl sulfide forms,
which, heated with hydrochloric acid, yields dichloroethyl sulfide.
Chemically, the reactions may be written as follows:

CH₃CH₂OH = CH₂ : CH₂ + H₂O

CH₂ : CH₂ + HClO = HOCH₂CH₂Cl
2HOCH₂CH₂Cl + Na₂S = (HOCH₂CH₂)₂S + 2NaCl
(HOCH₂CH₂)₂S + 2HCl = (ClCH₂CH₂)₂S + 2H₂O
Without going into the chemistry of this reaction, which is
thoroughly discussed by Gomberg[18] (see also German Manufacture),
it may be said that this “procedure proved to be unsuitable for large
scale production” (Dorsey). As Pope remarks, “That he (the German)
should have been able to produce three hundred tons of mustard gas
per month by the large scale installation of the purely academic
method (of Meyer) constitutes indeed ‘a significant tribute to the
potentialities represented by the large German fine chemical
factories.’” It is true that a great deal of experimental work was carried
out by the Allies on this method, but further study was dropped as
soon as the Pope method was discovered.
The first step in advance in the manufacture of mustard gas was
the discovery that ethylene would react with sulfur dichloride. While
American chemists were not very successful in their application of this
reaction, either in the laboratory or the plant, it was apparently,
according to Zanetti, the only method used by the French (the only
one of the Allies that manufactured and fired mustard gas). The plant
was that of the Société Chimique des Usines du Rhone and was
started early in March, 1918, with a production of two to three tons a
day. In July it was producing close to twenty tons a day. The plant was
being duplicated at the time of the Armistice, so that probably in
December, 1918, the production of mustard gas by the dichloride
process would have reached about 40 tons. Zanetti points out,
however, that the process involved complicated and costly apparatus
and required considerable quantities of carbon tetrachloride as a
solvent. It is for this reason that the Levinstein process would have
been a tremendous gain, had the war continued.
About the end of January, 1918, Pope and Gibson, in a study of the
reaction originally used by Guthrie, found that the action of ethylene
upon sulfur chloride (S₂Cl₂) at 60° yielded mustard gas and sulfur:

2CH₂ : CH₂ + S₂Cl₂ = (CH₂ClCH₂)₂S + S

The reaction at this temperature caused the separation of sulfur;
this occurred after the product stood for some time or immediately if it
was treated with moist ammonia gas. While this process was put into
commercial operation, both in England and America, it offered
considerable difficulty from an operating standpoint. The sulfur would
often separate out and block the inlet tubes (ethylene). While it is
comparatively easy to remove the mustard gas from the separated
sulfur by decantation, a certain amount always remains with the sulfur.
It is almost impossible to economically remove this, and its presence
adds to the difficulty of removing the sulfur from the reactors; the men
engaged in this operation almost always become casualties.
 Fig. 29.—The Levinstein Reactor
as Installed at Edgewood Arsenal.

It was especially important, therefore, when Green discovered that,

if the reaction was carried out at 30°, the sulfur did not settle out but
remained in “pseudo solution” in the mustard gas (Pope) or as a loose
chemical combination of the monosulfide (mustard gas) with an atom
of sulfur (Green). This material has all the physiological activity of the
pure monosulfide, while the enormous technical difficulties of handling
separated sulfur are entirely obviated by this method of manufacture.
To carry out the reaction Levinstein, Ltd., devised the Levinstein
“reactor.” The apparatus is shown in Fig. 29. The process consists
essentially in bringing together sulfur chloride and very pure ethylene
gas in the presence of crude mustard gas as a solvent at a
temperature ranging between 30-35° C. A supply of unchanged
monochloride is constantly maintained in the reacting liquid until a
sufficiently large batch is built up. Then the sulfur monochloride feed is
discontinued and the ethylene feed continued until further absorption
ceases. By controlling the ratio of mustard gas to uncombined
monochloride, the reaction velocity is so increased that the lower
temperature may be used.
The product thus obtained is a pale yellow liquid which deposits no
sulfur and requires no further treatment. It is ready for the shell filling
plant at once. The obvious advantage of this method led to its
adoption in all American plants started for the manufacture of mustard
gas (Edgewood, Cleveland and Buffalo).

Ethylene
It was known from the work of certain French chemists that in the
presence of such a catalyst as kaolin, ethyl alcohol is dehydrated at an
elevated temperature to ethylene. The process as finally developed by
American chemists consisted essentially in introducing mixtures of
alcohol vapor and steam, in the ratio of one to one by weight, into an
8-inch iron tube with a 3-inch core, in contact with clay at 500-600° C.
The use of steam rendered the temperature control more uniform and
thus each unit had a greater capacity of a higher grade product. The
gaseous products were removed through a water-cooled surface
condenser. One unit of this type had a demonstrated capacity of 400
cubic feet per hour of ethylene, between 92 and 95 per cent pure,
while the conversion efficiency (alcohol to ethylene) was about 85 per
cent. The Edgewood plant consisted of 40 such units. This would have
yielded sufficient ethylene to make 40 tons of mustard gas per 24-hour
day.
The English procedure consisted in the use of phosphoric acid,
absorbed onto coke. An American furnace was designed and built
which gave 2,000 cubic feet per hour of ethylene, with a purity of 98 to
99 per cent. This furnace was not used on a large scale, because of
the satisfactory nature of the kaolin furnaces.
 Fig. 30.—Experimental Installation for the Production
of Ethylene by Kaolin Procedure.
Capacity 400-600 cu. ft. Ethylene per hr.

Sulfur Chloride
Since chlorine was prepared at Edgewood, it was logical that some
of this chlorine should be utilized in the preparation of sulfur chloride.
The plant constructed consisted of 30 tanks (78 inches in diameter
and 35 feet long), each capable of producing 20,000 pounds of
monochloride per day. The tanks are partially filled with sulfur and
chlorine passed in. The reaction proceeds rapidly with sufficient heat
to keep the sulfur in a molten condition. If the chlorine is passed in too
rapidly, the heat generated may be sufficient to boil off the sulfur
chloride formed. Hence water pipes are provided so that a supply of
cold water may be sprayed upon the tanks, keeping the temperature
within the proper limits.
 Fig. 31.—Row of Furnaces for the Preparation of
Ethylene.

In the manufacture of one ton of mustard gas, about one ton of

sulfur chloride and a little less than half a ton of ethylene (12,640 cubic
feet) are required.

German Method of Manufacture[19]

 Fig. 32.—Preparation of Ethylene at
Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik. 60 units.

“Preparation of Ethylene—The gas was

prepared by passing alcohol vapor over aluminum
oxide at a temperature of 380° to 400°. The details of
the construction of one of the furnaces are given in
Figs. 32 and 33. The furnaces were very small and
sixty units were needed to furnish the amount of gas
required. The tubes containing the catalyzer were
made of copper and were heated in a bath of molten
potassium nitrate. It was stated that the catalyzer was
made according to the directions of Ipatieff, and that
its life was from 10 to 20 days. The gas produced
was washed in the usual form of scrubber. The yield
of ethylene was stated to be about 90 per cent of the
theoretical.
 Fig. 33.—Ethylene Production at
Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik. 1 unit.

Fig. 34.—Chlorhydrin reaction kettle at

Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik. 16 units.
 “Preparation of Ethylene Chlorhydrin—The
reaction was carried out in a cylindrical tank resting
on its side. The tank was furnished with a stirrer and
was insulated by means of cork in order to prevent
the transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the
inside. Enough chloride of lime was introduced into
the tank to furnish 500 kg. of available chlorine,
together with 5 cu. m. of water. At first, about 20 cu.
m. of carbon dioxide were led into the mixture, next
ethylene, and later carbon dioxide and ethylene
simultaneously. The rate of absorption of ethylene
was noted and when it slackened, more carbon
dioxide was added. Fuller details as to the addition of
the two gases were not given as it was stated that it
was a matter of judgment on the part of the workman
who was carrying out the operation. The reaction
should be carried out at as low a temperature as
possible, but it was found impossible to work below
5° with the apparatus employed in this factory. The
temperature during the reaction varied between 5°
and 10°. In order to maintain this temperature, the
solution was constantly pumped from the apparatus
through a coil which was cooled by brine. When
ethylene was no longer absorbed and there was an
excess of carbon dioxide present, the solution was
tested for hypochlorous acid. The time required for
the introduction of ethylene was between 2 and 3 hrs.
“The contents of the apparatus were passed
through a filter press by means of which the calcium
carbonate was removed. The solution thus obtained
contained from 10 to 12 per cent of ethylene
chlorhydrin. It was next distilled with steam and a
distillate collected which contained between 18 and
20 per cent of chlorhydrin. The yield of chlorhydrin
was from 60 to 80 per cent of that calculated from the
ethylene used.
Fig. 35.—Mustard Gas Manufacture at Leverkusen.
Layout for Chlorination of Thiodiglycol.

“Preparation of Dihydroxyethylsulfide—To
prepare the hydroxysulfide, the theoretical quantity of
sodium sulfide, either in the form of the anhydrous
salt or as crystals, was added to the 18 to 20 per cent
solution of chlorhydrin. After the addition of the
sulfide, the mixture was heated to about 90° to 100°.
It was then pumped to an evaporator, and heated
until all the water was driven off. The glycol was next
filtered from the salt which separated, and distilled in
a vacuum. The yield of glycol was about 90 per cent
of the theoretical, calculated from the chlorhydrin.
“Preparation of Dichlorethylsulfide—The
thiodiglycol was taken from the rail to two large
storage tanks and thence drawn by vacuum direct to
the reaction vessel. Each reaction vessel was placed
in a separate cubicle ventilated both from above and
below and fitted with glass windows for inspection.
The vessels themselves were made of 1¼ in. cast
iron and lined with 10 mm. lead. They were 2.5 m.
high and 2.8 m. in diameter. These tanks were
jacketed so that they could be heated by water and
steam, and the reaction was carried out at 50°. The
hydrochloric acid coming from the main pipe was
passed through sulfuric acid so that the rate could be
observed, and passed in by means of 12 glass tubes
of about 2 cm. diameter. The rate of flow was
maintained at as high a rate as possible to procure
absorption. The vapors from the reaction were led
from the vessel through a pipe into a collecting room,
and then through a scrubber containing charcoal and
water, through a separator, and then, finally, into the
chimney. These exhaust gases were drawn off by
means of a fan which was also connected with the
lower part of the chamber in which the reaction
vessels were set, so that all the gases had to pass
through the scrubber before going to the chimney.
When the reaction was completed, the oil was
removed by means of a vacuum, induced by a water
pump, into a cast iron washing vessel.
“The hydrochloric acid layer was removed to a
stoneware receiver, also by vacuum. A glass enabled
the operator to avoid drawing oil over with the acid.
The pan was fitted with a thermometer to the interior
as well as to the jacket. For testing the material
during reaction, provision was made for drawing
some up by vacuum to a hydrometer contained in a
glass funnel. The final test at this point read 126° Tw.
Another portion could be drawn up to a test glass and
hydrochloric acid passed through it in full view. A float
contained in a glass outer tube served to show the
level of the liquid in the vessel. The pans in which the
operation is carried on, as well as those employed for
washing and distilling the product, were of a standard
pattern employed in many other operations in the
works.
“The washer consisted of a cast iron vessel, lead
lined, and was 2.5 m. in diameter, 2 m. deep, and
fitted with a dome cover and stirring gear. Lead pipes
served for the introduction of sodium carbonate
solution and water. Similar pipes were fitted for
drawing these off by means of a vacuum. A manhole
on the cover, with a flat top, was fitted with light and
sight glasses to which were fitted a small steam coil
for keeping them clear. The washed oil is drawn off to
a distillation still, which is a cast iron vessel
homogeneously lead coated, 1.5 m. in diameter and
2 m. deep, fitted with a lead heating coil and
connected through a spiral lead condenser and
receiver to a vacuum pump. The water is distilled
from the oil at a pressure of from 62 to 70 mm.
absolute pressure. When dried, the oil is sent by
vacuum to a mixing vessel, similar in most respects
to the washing vessel, in which it is mixed with an
appointed quantity of solvent, which, in this factory,
was usually chlorobenzene but occasionally carbon
tetrachloride. The relative quantities varied with the
time of year, and instructions were sent from Berlin
on this point. Thence the mixture was passed to a
storage tank and into tank-wagons.”

American Method of Manufacture

 The Chemical Warfare Service investigated carefully the three
methods (German, French, and English) and finally adopted the
Levinstein process. The following discussion is taken from a report
originally made during construction, Sept., 1918.
The Levinstein reactor consisted of a jacketed and lead-lined
vessel or steel tank, 8 feet 5 inches in diameter and 14 feet tall. The
reactor contained 1,400 feet of lead pipe (outside diameter 2⅜
inches), made up into five coils, giving a total cooling surface of 1,200
square feet. The finished charge of such a reactor is 12 tons.
Ethylene was introduced through lead injectors, of which there
were 16, each suspended from its own opening in the top and hanging
so that the end of the injector tube was 12 inches from the bottom of
the reactor. The nozzle of the injector was ³/₁₆ inch outside diameter
and ethylene was introduced through it at 40 pounds pressure.
In starting the reaction, enough sulfur chloride was introduced into
the reactor to cover the central nozzles. Ethylene was now introduced,
and as the reaction proceeded sulfur chloride was added in sufficient
quantities to give a high rate of reaction. Brine or cold water was
introduced through the cooling coils and jacket to keep the reacting
temperature at 35° C.
When the charge was completed, the ethylene was turned off so
that only a small amount bubbled through the nozzles and the charge
syphoned off to the settling tank. These were constructed of iron, 8
feet in diameter and 19 feet tall. They were provided with iron coils by
which the liquid may be cooled down, or the sulfur, which precipitates
in the bottom, melted. The tank was large enough to hold six complete
charges of mustard gas and all the sulfur from these charges was
allowed to accumulate before removal of the sulfur. The supernatant
mustard gas was drawn off from above this sulfur to storage tanks.
Among the factors which influence the reaction are the following:
A temperature of over 60° C. in lead will decompose the product
slowly when sulfur chloride is present.
The presence of iron decomposes the product rapidly at a
temperature of 50° C. and probably at a considerably lower
temperature.
The purity of the product is dependent upon the time of reaction.
There is always a slow reaction between the mustard gas and sulfur
chloride, and because of this the charge should be completed in 8
hours.
In general the more sulfur that comes out of the solution, the better
is the product. Temperature has a marked effect on the separation of
sulfur. In order to entirely remove the sulfur from the product it was the
custom to increase the temperature at the close of the reaction from
55° to 70° C. This, however, caused plugging of the lines and the
reactor.

Properties
Dichloroethylsulfide (mustard gas) is a colorless, oily liquid, which
has a faint mustard odor. The pure material is said to have an odor
very suggestive of that of water cress. While the odor is more or less
characteristic, it is possible to have extremely dangerous amounts of
the gas in a neighborhood without being detected through its odors. It
still seems to be an open question whether mustard gas paralyzes the
sense of smell. One can find opinions on both sides.
Mustard gas boils at 215°-217° C. at atmospheric pressure, so that
it is at once seen to be a very persistent gas. It distills without
decomposition at this temperature but is best purified by vacuum
distillation, or by distillation with steam. A still for the vacuum
distillation of mustard gas has been described by Streeter.[20]
Mustard gas melts, when pure, at 13° to 14° C. (The ordinary
summer temperature is 20°-25° C.). The ordinary product, as obtained
from the “reactor,” melts from 9°-10° C. In order that the product in the
shell might be liquid at all temperatures, winter as well as summer, the
Germans added from 10 to 30 per cent of chlorobenzene, later using a
mixture of chlorobenzene and nitrobenzene and still later pure
nitrobenzene. Carbon tetrachloride has also been used as a means of
lowering the melting point. Many other mixtures, such as chloropicrin,
hydrocyanic acid, bromoacetone, etc., were tested, but were not used.
The effect on the melting point of mustard gas is shown in the
following table:

Melting point of Mustard gas Mixtures

Per
Carbon
Cent Chloropicrin Chlorobenzene
Tetrachloride
Added
0 13.4° C. 13.4° C. 13.4° C.
10 9.8 8.4 9.8
20 6.3 6.4 6.6
30 2.6 -1.0 3.1
The mustard gas as finally made by the United States contained
about 17 to 18 per cent sulfur in solution. The gas was then put in
shell and fired without the addition of any solvent. In actual practice
this impure product seemed even more powerful in causing casualties
than equal quantities of the pure mustard gas. Accordingly no
redistilling as originally contemplated was actually carried out.
The specific gravity of mustard gas at 20° is 1.2741. The solid
material has a slightly higher value, being 1.338 at 13°. Its vapor
pressure at room temperature is very low; at 20° this value has been
found to be about 0.06 mm. of mercury.
Mustard gas is practically insoluble in water, less than 0.1 per cent
forming a saturated solution. The reports that a 1 per cent solution
could be obtained did not consider the question of hydrolysis. Mustard
gas is freely soluble in all the ordinary organic solvents, such as
ligroin, alcohol, ether, chloroform, acetic acid, chlorobenzene, etc. In
case the solvent is miscible with water, dilution throws out the product
as an oil.

Chemical Properties
Mustard gas is very slowly decomposed by water, owing to its very
slight solubility. The products are dihydroxyethylsulfide and
hydrochloric acid:

(ClCH₂CH₂)₂S + 2H₂O = (HOCH₂CH₂)₂S + 2HCl

Certain sulfonated oils accelerate the rate of hydrolysis, both by
increasing the rate of solution and the solubility of the mustard gas.
Alkalies also increase the rate of hydrolysis. Oxidizing agents destroy
mustard gas. This reaction was made use of practically in that solid
bleaching powder was early introduced as a means of destroying
mustard gas in the field. (Fig. 9.)
Chlorinating agents (chlorine, sulfur dichloride, etc.) rapidly
transform mustard gas into an inactive (non-blistering) substance.
Sulfur dichloride was a valuable reagent in both laboratory and works
in “cleaning up” mustard gas. This reaction also explains why the early
attempts to prepare mustard gas by the interaction of ethylene and
sulfur dichloride were unsuccessful. Mustard gas is probably formed,
but is almost immediately chlorinated by the excess of sulfur
dichloride. Sulfur chloride on the other hand has no effect on mustard
gas. Chloramine-T and Dichloramine-T (the valuable therapeutic
agents introduced by Dakin and Carrel for treatment of wounds) also
react with mustard gas. For this reason they were advocated as
treatment for mustard gas burns. But as we will see later, they were
not altogether successful.

Detection
At first the only method of detecting mustard gas was through the
sense of smell. It was then believed that concentrations which could
not be detected in this way were harmless. Later this proved not to be
the case, and more delicate methods had to be devised. In the
laboratory and in the field these tests were not very satisfactory,
because most of them depended upon the presence of chlorine, and
the majority of the war gases contained chlorine or one of the other
halogens. The Lantern Test depended upon the accumulation of the
halogen upon a copper gauze and the subsequent heating of the
gauze in a Bunsen flame. This test could be made to detect one part
of mustard gas in ten million parts of air. Another field detector devised
by the Chemical Warfare Service consisted in the use of selenious
acid. Here again the lack of specificity is apparent, for while certain
halogen compounds did not give the test, arsine and organic
arsenicals gave a positive reaction and often in a shorter time than
mustard gas.

Fig. 36.—Field Detector for Mustard Gas.

The Germans are said to have had plates covered with a yellow
composition which had the property of turning black in the presence of
mustard gas. These plates were lowered into the bottom of recently
captured trenches and if, after a few minutes, they turned black, the
presence of mustard gas was suspected. It is also stated that the
characteristic yellow paint on the olive of the mustard gas shell had
the same composition, and was useful in detecting leaky shell.
According to a deserter’s statement, however, reliance upon this test
resulted in casualties in several instances.
A white paint has also been reported which turned red in the
presence of mustard gas. This color change was not characteristic, for
tests made by our Army showed that other oils (aniline, turpentine,
linseed) were found to produce the same effect.
 The Chemical Warfare Service was able to develop an enamel and
an oil paint which were very sensitive detectors of mustard gas. Both
of these were yellow and became dark red in contact with mustard
gas. The change was practically instantaneous. The enamel consisted
of chrome yellow as pigment mixed with oil scarlet and another dye,
and a lacquer vehicle, which is essentially a solution of nitrocellulose
in amyl acetate. One gallon of this enamel will cover 946,500 sq. cm.,
or a surface equivalent to a band 3 cm. wide on 12,500 seven cm.
shell.
The paint was composed of a mixture of 50 per cent raw linseed oil
and 50 per cent Japan drier, with the above dye mixture added to the
required consistency. In contact with liquid mustard gas, this changes
to a deep crimson in 4 seconds. Furthermore, in contact with
arsenicals, this paint changes to a color varying from deep purple to
dark green, the color change being almost instantaneous and very
sensitive, even to the vapors of these compounds. Other substances
have no effect upon the paint.
For field work, however, nothing was found equal to the trained
nose, and it is questionable if any of the mechanical means described
will be used in the field.

Physiological Action
One of the most interesting phases of mustard gas is its peculiar
physiological action. This has been studied extensively, both as relates
to the toxicity and to the skin or blistering effect.

Toxicity
When one considers the high boiling point of mustard gas, and its
consequent low vapor pressure, he is likely to conclude that such a
substance would be of comparatively little value as a toxic or poison
gas. While it is true that an important part of the military value of
mustard gas has been because of its vesicant properties, the fact still
remains that it is one of our most toxic war gases. The following
comparison with a few of the other gases indicates this:
 Mg. per Liter
Mice Dogs
Mustard gas 0.2 0.05
Phosgene 0.3 ···
Hydrocyanic acid 0.2 0.1
Chloropicrin 1.5 0.8
··· 3.0
When an animal is exposed to the vapors of mustard gas in high
concentration, it subsequently shows a complexity of symptoms, which
may be divided into two classes:
(1) The local effects on the eyes, skin and respiratory tract. These
are well recognized and consist mainly of conjunctivitis and superficial
necrosis of the cornea; hyperemia, œdema and later, necrosis of the
skin, leading to a skin lesion of great chronicity; and congestion and
necrosis of the epithelial lining of the trachea and bronchi.
(2) The systemic effects due to the absorption of the substance into
the blood stream, and its distribution to the various tissues of the body.
The most striking observation about the symptoms of mustard gas
poisoning is the latent period which elapses after exposure before any
serious objective or subjective effects are noted. The developments of
the effects are then quite slow, unless very high superlethal doses
have been inhaled.
At first it was a very serious question whether or not the temporary
blindness resulting from mustard gas would not be permanent. Later,
as the depth and seriousness of some of the body burns became well
known, it was a seven-day wonder that no permanent blindness
occurred.
The reason seems to be largely a mechanical one. The constant
winking of the eyelids apparently washes the mustard gas off the
eyeball and carries it away so that not enough remains to burn to the
depth necessary to cause permanent blindness.
 Due to the very slight concentrations ordinarily encountered in the
field, resulting from a very slow rate of evaporation, the death rate is
very low, probably under 1 per cent among the Americans gassed with
mustard during the war.
If, on the other hand, the gas be widely and very finely dispersed
by a heavy charge of explosive in the shell, the gas is very deadly. In
such cases the injured breathe in minute particles of the liquid and
thus get hundreds of times the amount of gas that would be inhaled as
vapor. This so-called “high explosive mustard gas shell” was a
German development in the very last months of the war. Its effects
were great enough to make it certain that in the future large numbers
of these shell will be used.
The similarity of the symptoms and pathological effects after the
inhalation of large amounts of the vapor and those following an
injection of an olive oil or water solution of mustard gas led Marshall
and his associates to conclude that in high concentrations mustard
gas is absorbed through the lungs. A further bit of evidence consists in
the isolation of the hydrolysis product, dihydroxyethylsulfide, in the
urine of animals poisoned by inhalation of mustard gas. This product is
not toxic and is not responsible for the effects of mustard gas.
Hydrochloric acid, however, does produce very definite effects upon
the animal and may cause death.
From these facts Marshall[21] has proposed the following
mechanism of the action of mustard gas:
“Dichlorethylsulphide is very slightly soluble in
water and very freely soluble in organic solvents, or
has a high lipoid solubility or partition coefficient. It
would, therefore, be expected to penetrate cells very
readily. Its rapid powers of penetration are practically
proven by its effects upon the skin. Having
penetrated within the living cell, it would undoubtedly
hydrolyze. The liberation of free hydrochloric acid
within the cell would produce serious effects and
might account for the actions of dichlorethylsulphide.
To summarize, then, the mechanism of the action of
dichlorethylsulphide appears to be as follows: