The Virtue of Agency: Sôphrosunê and

Self-Constitution in Classical Greece

Christopher Moore
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-virtue-of-agency-sophrosune-and-self-constitution
-in-classical-greece-christopher-moore/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Self-Cultivation Philosophies in Ancient India, Greece,

and China 1st Edition Christopher W. Gowans

https://ebookmass.com/product/self-cultivation-philosophies-in-
ancient-india-greece-and-china-1st-edition-christopher-w-gowans/

Vicarious Identity in International Relations: Self,

Security, and Status on the Global Stage 1st Edition
Christopher S. Browning

https://ebookmass.com/product/vicarious-identity-in-
international-relations-self-security-and-status-on-the-global-
stage-1st-edition-christopher-s-browning/

Telamonian Ajax: The Myth in Archaic and Classical

Greece Sophie Marianne Bocksberger

https://ebookmass.com/product/telamonian-ajax-the-myth-in-
archaic-and-classical-greece-sophie-marianne-bocksberger/

The Orator Demades: Classical Greece Reimagined through

Rhetoric Sviatoslav Dmitirev

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-orator-demades-classical-
greece-reimagined-through-rhetoric-sviatoslav-dmitirev/
Suffering and Virtue Michael S Brady

https://ebookmass.com/product/suffering-and-virtue-michael-s-
brady/

Classical Chinese Gardens: Landscapes for Self-

Cultivation 1st Edition Dr. Donia Zhang * Oxford
Brookes University

https://ebookmass.com/product/classical-chinese-gardens-
landscapes-for-self-cultivation-1st-edition-dr-donia-zhang-
oxford-brookes-university/

Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Endocrinology 1st Edition

Christopher S. Kovacs

https://ebookmass.com/product/maternal-fetal-and-neonatal-
endocrinology-1st-edition-christopher-s-kovacs/

Until Midnight: HeartStrings Dating Agency Chashiree M.

& M.K. Moore

https://ebookmass.com/product/until-midnight-heartstrings-dating-
agency-chashiree-m-m-k-moore/

Socioeconomic Fragmentation and Exclusion in Greece

under the Crisis 1st Edition Dimitris Katsikas

https://ebookmass.com/product/socioeconomic-fragmentation-and-
exclusion-in-greece-under-the-crisis-1st-edition-dimitris-
katsikas/
The Virtue of Agency
The Virtue of Agency
Sôphrosunê and Self-​Constitution in
Classical Greece

CHRISTOPHER MOORE
 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Christopher Moore 2023

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Moore, Christopher, author.
Title: The virtue of agency : Sôphrosunê and Self-Constitution in
Classical Greece / Christopher Moore.
Description: New York, NY, United States of America : Oxford University Press, [2023] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2023004777 (print) | LCCN 2023004778 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197663509 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197663523 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Temperance (Virtue) | Moderation.
Classification: LCC BV4647 .T4 M667 2023 (print) | LCC BV4647 .T4 (ebook) |
DDC 179/.9—dc23/eng/20230425
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023004777
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023004778

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197663509.001.0001

Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

for my mother,

σωφρονεστάτη
 Nor do not saw the air
too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently;
for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say,
the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget
a temperance that may give it smoothness.
—​Hamlet

I have no impulse to join those the Buddha describes, those who

strain always after fulfillment and in fulfillment strive to feel desire.
It has seemed to me that my commitments are often more important
than my impulses or my pleasures, and that even when my pleasures
or desires are the principal issue, there are choices to be made be-
tween better and worse, bad and better, good and good.
—​Wallace Stegner, The Spectator Bird

Your constitution is what gives you the kind of volitional unity you
need to be the author of your actions. And it is the person who acts
in accordance with the best constitution, the most unified consti-
tution, who is most truly the author of her actions. For Kant as for
Plato, integrity is the metaphysical essence of morality.
—​Christine Korsgaard, The Constitution of Agency
 Contents

Acknowledgments  ix
Selected Abbreviations and Editions  xi

1. Debating a Virtue  1
2. The Early History of Sôphrosunê  27
3. Heraclitus, Self-​Knowledge, and the Greatest Virtue  54
4. Tragic Sôphrosunê in Two Plays of Euripides  75
5. The Late Fifth Century  100
6. The Figure of Socrates  133
7. Xenophon on Sôphrosunê and Enkrateia  157
8. Plato 1—​Sôphrosunê and the Capacity for Action  185
9. Plato 2—​Two Formulations of Agency  212
10. Plato 3—​Sôphrosunê with Wisdom in Two Late Dialogues  236
11. Aristotle and the Later Fourth Century  257
12. Pythagorean Sôphrosunê  281
13. Sôphrosunê for Later Greek Women  307

Epilogue: Translating an Ancient Virtue for Modern Times  335

Epigraphical Appendix  341
Bibliography  347
Index Locorum  373
Index  383
 Acknowledgments

I began thinking seriously about sôphrosunê in infinite discussions with Chris

Raymond, my “other self ” in ancient philosophy, as we tried to make sense of
Plato’s Charmides and its central topic of discussion. We made good progress
there, but not enough; hence this book. He read a number of the present chapters,
as did Mirjam Kotwick, Alex Lee, Pamela Mensch, Sarah Nooter, and David
Williams, to each of whom I am deeply grateful. Audiences in several venues—​
Boulder, Verona, Siracusa, and the Sophists-​and-​Public-​Intellectuals-​Network
Zoom group—​helped with parts of various chapters. All the chapters were read
by two highly engaged referees for Oxford University Press, who succeeded in
getting me to rewrite the entire book, twice. The National Humanities Center
supported my writing of the last several chapters and the beginning of the book’s
revision. Lucy Randall has been an ideal editor: responsive, professional, and
encouraging. And, well, I have learned a lot about sôphrosunê from members of
my family, often as models of the virtue, sometimes as acolytes to its embodiment;
in every case, as objects of love.
 Selected Abbreviations and Editions

A. Aeschylus: Page, D., ed., Aeschyli Septem Quae Supersunt Tragoedias

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972).
fr. fragment (in TrGF)
Pers. Persians
Ag. Agamemnon
Eum. Eumenides
Choe. Choephoroi (Libation Bearers)
Sept. Seven against Thebes
Supp. Suppliant Maidens
[PB] Prometheus Bound
Aesch. Aeschines
Anon. Iambl. Anonymus Iamblichi (in Iamblichus)
Antiph. Antiphon: Pendrick, G., Antiphon the Sophist: The Fragments. Cambridge
Classical Texts and Commentaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002).
Antisth. Antisthenes: Prince, S., Antisthenes of Athens: Texts, Translations, and
Commentary (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016).
Ar. Aristophanes: Wilson, N. G., ed., Aristophanis Fabulae. 2 vols.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Ach. Acharnians
Nub. Clouds
Ran. Frogs
Th. Women at the Thesmophoria
Pl. Plutus (Wealth)
Arist. Aristotle
EE Eudemian Ethics: Susemihl, F., ed. Eudemi Rhodii Ethica (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1884).
NE Nicomachean Ethics: Bywater, I., ed., Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1894).
Metaph. Metaphysics: Jaeger, W., ed., Aristotelis Metaphysica (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1957).
MM Magna Moralia: Susemihl, F., ed., Aristotelis quae feruntur Magna
moralia (Leipzig: Teubner, 1883).
[Probl.] Problemata: Bekker, I., ed., Aristotelis Opera, vol. 2 (Berlin: Reimer, 1831).
Pol. Politics: Ross, W. D., ed., Aristotelis Politica (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1957).
Rhet. Rhetoric: Ross, W. D., ed., Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1959).
Top. Topics: Ross, W. D., ed., Aristotelis topica et sophistici elenchi (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1958).
xii Selected Abbreviations and Editions

Aristox. Aristoxenus
Pyth. pr. Pythagorean Precepts: Huffman, C., ed., Aristoxenus of Tarentum: The
Pythagorean Precepts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019).
VA Life of Archytas: Huffman, C., ed., Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean,
Philosopher, and Mathematician King (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005).
Bacchyl. Bacchylides: Snell, B. and H. Maehler, eds., Bacchylides. Carmina cum
fragmentis, 10th ed. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1970).
BNJ Worthington, I., ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2018–​).
CEG Hansen, P. A., ed., Carmina epigraphica Graeca, 2 vols. (Berlin: De Gruyter,
1983–​89).
Democr. Democritus (in LM)
Diss. Log. Dissoi Logoi (in LM)
DK Diels, H., and W. Kranz, eds., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed.
(Berlin: Weidmann, 1951).
DL Diogenes Laertius: Dorandi, T., ed., Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent
Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
DPhA Goulet, R. ed., Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques (Paris: CNRS
Éditions, 1989–​2003).
Eur. Euripides: Diggle, J., ed., Euripides Fabulae, 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1981–​94).
Bacch. Bacchae
Cycl. Cyclops
Hipp. Hippolytus
IA Iphigenia at Aulis
Med. Medea
Or. Orestes
fr. fragments (in TrGF)
Hdt. Herodotus: Wilson, N. G., ed., Herodoti Historiae, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2015).
Hes. Hesiod: Most, G. W., ed., Hesiod, rev. ed., 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018).
WD Works and Days
Th. Theogony
Hom. Homer
Il. Iliad: West, M. L., ed., Homeri Ilias, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1998–​2000).
Od. Odyssey: West, M. L., ed., Homerus: Odyssea (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017).
Iambl. Iamblichus of Chalcis
Protr. Protreptic: Pistelli, E., ed., Iamblichi Protrepticus (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967).
VP On the Pythagorean Way of Life: Nauck, A., ed., Iamblichi De vita
Pythagorica (St. Petersburg: Eggers, 1884).
Ibyc. Ibycus (in PMG)
Isoc. Isocrates: Mandilaras, B. G., ed., Isocrates: Opera Omnia, 3 vols. (Munich:
Teubner/​Saur, 2003).
LM Laks, A., and G. Most, eds., Early Greek Philosophy, 9 vols., Loeb Classical
Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017).
 Selected Abbreviations and Editions xiii

LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-​English Lexicon, 9th ed.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925–​40).
Lys. Lysias: Carey, C., ed., Lysiae Orationes cum Fragmentis (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007).
OCD Hornblower, S., A. Spawforth, and E. Eidinow, eds., Oxford Classical
Dictionary, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
PCG Kassel, R., and C. Austin, eds., Poetai Comici Graeci, 8 vols. (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1983–​95).
Pind. Pindar: Race, W. H., ed., Pindar, rev. ed., 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).
Isthm. Isthmian Odes
Nem. Nemean Odes
Ol. Olympian Odes
Pyth. Pythian Odes
fr. fragment
Paeans Rutherford, I., Pindar’s Paeans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Pl. Plato: Burnet, J., ed., Platonis Opera (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1900–​1907).
Alc. Alcibiades
Chrm. Charmides
Crat. Cratylus
Euthd. Euthydemus
Grg. Gorgias
La. Laches
Phd. Phaedo
Phdr. Phaedrus
Phlb. Philebus
Pol. Statesman, Politicus
Prot. Protagoras
Rep. Republic: Slings, S. R., ed., Platonis Rempublicam (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003).
Symp. Symposium
Tim. Timaeus
Plut. Plutarch: Nachstädt, W., W. Sieveking, and J. B. Titchener, eds., Plutarchi
Moralia, 7 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1966–​71).
PMG Davies, M., and D. L. Page, eds., Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta,
vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
Σ Scholiast
SEP Zalta, E., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research
Laboratory, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University, 2022. Online.
Soph. Sophocles: Lloyd-​Jones, H., and N. G. Wilson, eds., Sophoclis Fablulae
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).
Aj. Ajax
Ant. Antigone
El. Electra
xiv Selected Abbreviations and Editions

OC Oedipus at Colonus
OT Oedipus Tyrannos
Ph. Philoctetes
fr. fragment (in TrGF)
SSR Giannantoni, G., ed., Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae (Naples:
Bibliopolis, 1991).
Stob. Stobaeus: Wachsmuth, C., and O. Hense, eds., Joannis Stobaei
Anthologium, 5 vols. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1884–​1912).
Thg. Theognis: West, M. L., ed., Iambi et Elegi Graeci, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1989–​92).
Thuc. Thucydides: Jones, H. S., and J. E. Powell, eds., Thucydidis Historiae,
2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942).
TrGF Snell, B., R. Kannicht, and S. Radt, eds., Tragicorum Graecorum
Fragmenta, 6 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1971–​2004).
Xen. Xenophon: Marchant, E. C., ed., Xenophontis Opera Omnia, 2nd ed.,
5 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921).
Anab. Anabasis
Ap. Apology of Socrates
Cyn. Cynegeticus (On Hunting with Dogs)
Cyr. Cyropedia
Hell. Hellenika (History of Greece)
Hipparch. Hipparchus (On the Cavalry Commander)
Lac. Pol. Constitution of the Spartans
Mem. Memorabilia (Memoirs of Socrates)
Oec. Oeconomicus (On Estate Management)
Symp. Symposium (Banquet)

Other abbreviations are generally from OCD.

Translations are my own unless otherwise credited.

Note on Reference to “Presocratic” Fragments

The text of ancient writings by and about the early Greek writers eventually
called “philosophers” comes from LM, unless noted, and is cited by both DK and
LM number, if available. In DK, “A” precedes testimonia, “B” precedes fragments.
In LM, “P” precedes information about the philosopher, “D” precedes fragments
or doctrinal statements, and “R” precedes later reception of the philosophers’
thought (according to the editors’ judgment).
 1
Debating a Virtue

Sôphrosunê, a Virtue of Agency

This book tells a story about the Greek virtue sôphrosunê (σωφροσύνη) during
the classical era.1 It is a story of a virtue coming to increased attention and es-
teem, the queries and debates that followed, and the theories put forward to re-
solve those puzzles and disagreements.
By the fifth century sôphrosunê was becoming canonical—​one among three
or four other virtue-​terms which, together, name the competences of the wholly
good person. By the fourth century, this canon generally included, besides
sôphrosunê, wisdom (σοφία), courage (ἀνδρεία), justice (δικαιοσύνη), and some-
times piety (εὐσέβεια). All are familiar, but sôphrosunê least so. Accordingly, the
descriptive purpose of this book is to show how writers in the classical period
used the term, and especially what they said about it, how they esteemed it,
what they contended over, and how the philosophically minded of them sought
to clarify or articulate or redefine the term in response to those contentions.
Without surveying usages exhaustively or taxonomizing every variety, the goal
is to reconstruct how these authors understood sôphrosunê as a fundamental
human excellence.
Hardly separable from the descriptive purpose of this book is its interpreta-
tive purpose. It seeks to answer questions that may not have been asked in such
explicit terms by the Greeks themselves: Why was sôphrosunê so esteemed? Why
did it merit such disagreement? Why did fourth-​century writers include it in
their quadripartite or other-​sized canons of virtues? Why was it sometimes even
treated as the condition for the other virtues? In brief: What fundamental aspect
of human excellence did the term sôphrosunê actually point to?

1 I pronounce σωφροσύνη, which I transliterate as sôphrosunê (though other authors write

sophrosyne), soe-​froe-​SUE-​nay, as though the Greek accent over the υ serves as a stress marker; some
others pronounce it suh-​FRAH-​zoo-​nay, preferring the English pattern of stressing the antepenult
and giving the omicron a broader sound. I always transliterate the term (for discussion of English
translations of the term, see the epilogue) and usually use the abstract nominal form as a stand-​in
for the other main parts of speech (unless the form is important or English grammar prefers an-
other part of speech): sôphronein (verb), sôphrôn (adjective), sôphronôs (adverb). Other forms in-
clude sôphronizein (verb: “to cause to be sôphrôn”), sôphronismos (noun: “result of sôphronizein”),
and sôphronikos (adjective: “sôphrôn-​like”).

The Virtue of Agency. Christopher Moore, Oxford University Press. © Christopher Moore 2023.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197663509.003.0001
2 The Virtue of Agency

Despite the range of contexts in which Greek authors used the term
sôphrosunê, their divergent sensibilities and judgments about it, and their dis-
tinctive elaborations on the virtue’s nature, we come to see that they shared a
basic assumption. Sôphrosunê is the capacity to act well in the face of a distinctive
human challenge: the conflicting heterogeneity of our ends. Given our range of
interests, relationships, and needs, we may simultaneously feel several opposed
inclinations to act, and often the one we feel most strongly is not the one we
should act on now. Sôphrosunê allows us to choose our action on grounds in-
dependent of the phenomenological quality of our inclinations—​their strength
or noisiness or urgency—​when that quality does not actually convey practical
wisdom. This capacity for a more deliberative and hopefully more successful ac-
tion may be formulated in various ways, depending on one’s preferred moral-​
psychological formulations—​as the capacity to act only on certain desires, to
pursue only certain goals, to acknowledge only certain norms, to accept only cer-
tain reasons. However we put it, we need sôphrosunê because we sometimes feel
like doing things that, outside the cramped experience of that feeling, differ from
what we can realize we should do.
The other virtues can be seen as solutions to human challenges: justice to
our living among others who have rights and interests; courage to the fact that
defending our rights and interests causes risk of harm to ourselves; piety to the
invisible and aloof gods who may nevertheless demand our fealty; wisdom to the
obscurity of practical problems and the uncertainty of future outcomes. These are
not exclusive, sharply delineated, or equal-​sized domains; their scope and reach
depend on the conception of the situation. For instance, wisdom might assess
who has which rights and interests and the best way to respect them; it may take
courage to respect those rights that seem contrary to tradition. Because of these
overlapping domains, sôphrosunê can sometimes seem a particular capacity—​
the capacity to deal with desiderative plurality—​but also the general term for
every other virtue. Analyzing courage as the competition between the desire for
safety and the desire for honor turns it into a class of sôphrosunê; so, too, justice
as wanting to respect others but also to keep one’s money, or piety as the wish to
benefit the gods but also to keep to human affairs. Hence sôphrosunê’s distinctive
association with those conflicted desires less readily found in martial, political,
or religious contexts, such as those for bodily pleasure or self-​aggrandizement.
Still, the solution sôphrosunê provides has a general character.
The problem with having multiple simultaneous desires or goals or action-​
guiding principles is plain: they cannot all be satisfied, they may not be equally
good, and one’s appraisal of them at one moment may not match one’s appraisal
at other moments. Though one may experience a given desire as supremely ur-
gent, it may not warrant so much attention. What feels like an emergency may
be no such thing. Indeed, satisfying a dominating desire may prevent satisfying
 Debating a Virtue 3

desires that, with a few moments’ distance, would reveal themselves to be more
valuable from the long-​term perspective or otherwise more deserving of sat-
isfaction. Further, if one acts only as the seemingly strongest desire demands,
and the relative strength of desires fluctuates for physiological or psycholog-
ical reasons, one may keep switching actions, and many of the most important
actions need prolonged and stable engagement. And sometimes there is not even
a single strongest desire, so something else is needed to decide what to do. These
three problems—​false alarms, mercuriality, and indeterminacy—​represent the
sorts of problems that sôphrosunê addresses.
Sôphrosunê is a power of practical discrimination, but it is also one of self-​
constitution. You observe that you have many inclinations to do one thing or
another, but you commit yourself to acting only on those that advance what you,
as an ongoing and farsighted being, really want to be doing. Not every inclina-
tion does so equally. You deem some of those inclinations as less representative
of yourself, as alien or adventitious or merely bodily or from a less authoritative
part of the soul. Others you deem more representative and identify with them,
so to speak, saying, “This is what I want,” and, in committing yourself to them,
incorporating them, you become them and they become you. Sôphrosunê is thus
the virtue that makes each of us count as a “self,” something or someone that has
practical integrity through time. The alternative is being a mere site of desire-​
satisfaction and desire-​frustration. A self originates actions for which it takes full
responsibility. Adult human individuals do not merely embody movements or
behaviors, as do animals and babies, and they do not merely carry out actions for
somebody else, as do tools, robots, and, in a qualified way, slaves. They are agents.
As agents, they act rather than simply move; it is they, rather than physiological
energies or social pressures, who do the acting.
The achievement of the agency that comes from self-​constitution is the goal
of nearly every regimen of maturation, what parents hope for their children and
good societies hope for their citizens. A person may not in every instance strive
to act independently of her potent feelings. But we do expect people to attain
some degree of agency, some authority over the desires that prompt them to ac-
tion. Only in this way does a person’s actions belong to that person, and not just
to the impulses and habits imputed by nature, society, or happenstance.
Yet is sôphrosunê just an executive virtue of prudence and rationality, of an
enlightened self-​interest, concerned with being an even-​keeled captain of one’s
actions, whatever they are? Is it not also an ethical virtue, concerned with doing
the right thing toward others? The answer depends on the desires that we should
act on, the goals to which we should strive, the norms that should guide us. It
depends on the correspondence between what I really want or value, what I iden-
tify with as most properly my desire or goal or self-​defining ruling, and the norms
we might take as objective: what the gods deserve, what justice demands, what
4 The Virtue of Agency

the laws of reason require. That correspondence is controversial. One might sup-
pose that they do correspond: we are supremely vulnerable to the gods, and so
we do ideally desire to furnish them with what they deserve; personal well-​being
depends on civic comity, and so we do ideally desire to meet the demands of
justice; hard practical or theoretical problems do not get solved through sloppy
thinking, and so we do ideally desire to think carefully and well. Or the ethical
life is for some other reason supremely valuable and desirable, or even already
valued and desired. But one might equally doubt that the norms of pious, just,
and reasonable action are really one’s own self-​constituting norms, and deny that
they reflect one’s deepest, most stable, and most internally consistent desires.
They might seem merely distant and alien authorities. By desiring to propitiate
some mysterious gods, or following the decrees of a hyperventilating democratic
assembly, or obeying a logician’s parameters for valid inference, am I not in fact
abdicating from or alienating my agency, submitting myself to someone else’s
will, being mastered rather than mastering myself? This doubter might go on
to expand his criticism. Might not any standard deployed to judge between my
desires involve something external to those desires and thus external to myself?
Isn’t agency simply the capacity to satisfy the desires that I happen to have? Isn’t
sôphrosunê, in seeking to separate myself from my desires, precisely the virtue
that undermines agency?
The drama to be found in our story of sôphrosunê in classical Greece comes
from the discovery of these questions and the refinements and response they
prompted. The apologists for the virtue must show how ignoring or neutralizing
some of one’s desires, and adopting what may appear an external regime of value,
can constitute oneself as a self, an agent, an effective and responsible actor. The
critics of the virtue must show how a life meritorious even in one’s own terms can
unfold without any selection between and consequent commitment to the ends
or guidelines or desires that motivate or guide one’s actions.
The story is not so simple as pro and con, however; there are alternative
formulations, inchoate presentiments, idiosyncratic takes, and rabbit holes of
one depth or another. But its significance should be clear. Greek discourse about
sôphrosunê is to be seen as discourse about the ideal of agency: How do we be-
come people who act for ourselves?

A Laudatory Attribution Becomes Contentious

The term sôphrosunê appears in the Homeric epics, where it denotes the admi-
rable capacity not to blurt or act out in situations where doing so, no matter how
natural or satisfying, would be contrary to one’s broader goals or commitments.
This rational self-​discipline becomes thematic a century later, in the sympotic
 Debating a Virtue 5

poetry of Theognis, as an admirable trait of reliable individuals and loyal citizens.

By the early fifth century, it appears among the cardinal virtues of Pindar and
Aeschylus, as it does on celebratory tombstones and in the philosophical aperçus
of Heraclitus, now glossing the virtue in terms of Delphic self-​knowledge. By the
later fifth century, the term appears across the literary genres—​historiography,
tragedy, comedy, and oratory—​reflecting its essential position in Greek evalua-
tive and ethical vocabulary.
As the social importance of sôphrosunê grows, so too does its correct appli-
cation or retraction. Ascription, or withholding of ascription, becomes emi-
nently valuable. This raises the possibility of disagreement—​about the virtue’s
scope, criteria, acquisition, operation, and real significance. The historical record
reveals this disagreement. Three-​quarters through the fifth century, extant lit-
erature first depicts and dramatizes debates about sôphrosunê. It does so vigor-
ously and expansively. As the characters of this literature valorize themselves as
sôphrôn and contend with that valorization, its authors prove the centrality of the
virtue for thinking about the life successfully carried out—​as a leader, a parent,
a citizen, and generally as a grown-​up person. In their querying of the virtue’s
nature, they raise and refine deep questions about human maturity, in particular
about our being actors rather than patients in our own lives. We see that these
debates concern our capacity to act on our own behalf, our constituting ourselves
as agents.
Three debates from the decade around 425 bce—​the period of Socrates’ ma-
turity, the height of the sophistic period, the beginning of the Peloponnesian
War—​capture three dimensions of disagreement about sôphrosunê, and thereby
three dimensions on which the term serves as commendation. An exchange
early in Herodotus’ Histories (finished in the 420s bce) concerns the evaluation
of competent action, formulated in the language of sôphrosunê. The text asks,
Against what background of goals and interests do we judge a person a successful
agent, someone who does what he really wants, rather than simply a tool to sat-
isfy the whims of madness? A series of conversations in Euripides’ Medea (431
bce) concerns the type of considerations and kind of reasoning necessary for
being deemed sôphrôn. What makes certain motivations count as proper to one-
self, and thus acting from them sôphrôn, and what makes others count as extra-
neous, as the grounds only of foolish action? Finally, the famous contest between
Better and Worse Argument in Aristophanes’ Clouds (first production 423 bce)
concerns the viability and value of an education to sôphrosunê. What could bring
the virtue about, and would having it do more good than harm?
These are not the only debates about sôphrosunê from the period; in
Chapters 4–​6 we return to more in Euripides and look closely at implied or actual
debates attributable to Critias, Democritus, Antiphon, Thucydides, and Socrates,
other major intellectuals of the period. The present selection of discussions
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Chemical
warfare
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Chemical warfare

Author: Amos A. Fries

Clarence J. West

Release date: October 22, 2023 [eBook #71931]

Language: English

Original publication: New York: McGraw Hill, 1921

Credits: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at

https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHEMICAL

WARFARE ***
CHEMICAL WARFARE

McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.

PUBLISHERS OF BOOKS FOR
Coal Age ▼ Electric Railway Journal
Electrical World ▼ Engineering News-Record
American Machinist ▼ Ingeniería Internacional
Engineering & Mining Journal ▼ Power
Chemical & Metallurgical Engineering
Electrical Merchandising
CHEMICAL WARFARE
BY
AMOS A. FRIES
Brigadier General, C. W. S., U. S. A.
Chief, Chemical Warfare Service

AND
CLARENCE J. WEST
Major, C. W. S. Reserve Corps, U. S. A.
National Research Council

First Edition

McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, Inc.

NEW YORK: 370 SEVENTH AVENUE
LONDON: 6 & 8 BOUVERIE ST., E. C. 4
1921

Copyright, 1921, by the

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
 PREFACE
Shortly after the signing of the Armistice, it was realized that the
story of Chemical Warfare should be written, partly because of its
historical value, and partly because of the future needs of a textbook
covering the fundamental facts of the Service for the Army, the
Reserve Officer, the National Guard, and even the Civilian Chemist.
The present work was undertaken by both authors as a labor of
patriotism and because of their interest in the Service.
The two years which have elapsed since the initial discussion of
the outlines of the book have thoroughly convinced us of the need of
such a work. The Engineers, the Medical Department, and most of
the other branches of the Army have their recognized textbooks and
manuals. There has been no way, however, by which the uninformed
can check the accuracy of statements regarding Chemical Warfare.
The present volume will serve, in a measure, to fill this gap. That it
does not do so more completely is due in part to the fact that secrecy
must still be maintained about some of the facts and some of the
new discoveries which are the property of the Service. Those familiar
with the work of the Chemical Warfare Service will discover, though,
that the following pages contain many statements which were
zealously guarded secrets two years ago. This enlarged program of
publicity on the part of the Chief of the Service is being justified
every day by the ever increasing interest in this branch of warfare.
Where five men were discussing Chemical Warfare two years ago,
fifty men are talking about the work and the possibilities of the
Service today. It is hoped that the facts here presented may further
increase the interest in Chemical Warfare, for there is no question
but that it must be recognized as a permanent and a very vital
branch of the Army of every country. Reasons for this will be found
scattered through the pages of this book.
It should be explained that this is in no sense a complete
historical sketch of the development and personnel of the Chemical
Warfare Service. At least two more volumes are needed,—one on
the Manufacture of Poisonous Gases and one on the Tactics of
Chemical Warfare. We have purposely refrained from an attempt to
give credit to individuals for the accomplishments of the various
Divisions of the Service, because such an attempt would have made
the book too voluminous, and would have defeated the primary
purpose, namely, that it should present the information in as concise
manner as possible. The published and unpublished materials of the
files of all the Divisions have been freely drawn upon in writing the
various chapters, and many old C. W. S. men will undoubtedly
recognize whole sentences which they wrote under the stress of the
laboratory or plant “battle front.” May these few lines be an
acknowledgment of their contributions. Those who desire to consult
the literature of Chemical Warfare will find a fairly complete
bibliography (to about the middle of 1919) in “Special Libraries” for
November, 1919.
Special acknowledgment is made to Dr. G. J. Esselen, Jr., for
having read the manuscript and for helpful and constructive
criticisms. Many of the figures are reproduced by permission of the
Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry; those showing the
Nelson cell were furnished by the Samuel M. Green Company.

Amos A. Fries,
Clarence J. West.
Aug. 1, 1921.
 FOREWORD
After all peaceful means of settling disputes between nations
have been resorted to and have failed, war is often declared by one
of the disputants for the purpose of imposing its will upon the other
by force. In order to accomplish this, a superiority must be
established over the adversary in trained men and in implements of
war.
Men are nothing in modern war unless they are equipped with the
most effective devices for killing and maiming the enemy’s soldiers
and thoroughly trained in the use of such implements.
History proves that an effective implement of war has never been
discarded until it becomes obsolete.
It is impossible to humanize the act of killing and maiming the
enemy’s soldiers, and there is no logical grounds on which to
condemn an appliance so long as its application can be so confined.
Experiments in this and other countries during the World War
completely established the fact that gas can be so confined. The
range of gas clouds is no greater than that of artillery and the
population in the area behind the front line must, if they remain in
such range, take their chance. The danger area in the future will be
known to all.
As the first Director of the Chemical Warfare Service, U. S. Army,
I speak with some experience when I say that there is no field in
which the future possibilities are greater than in chemical warfare,
and no field in which neglect to keep abreast of the times in research
and training would be more disastrous.
Notwithstanding the fact that gas was used in the World War two
years before the United States entered the fray, practically nothing
was done in this country before April, 1917, towards the
development of any chemical warfare appliances, offensive or
defensive, and had it not been for the ability of an ally to supply our
troops with such appliances, they would have been as defenseless
as the Canadians were at Ypres when the Germans sent over their
first gas cloud.
This book recites the troubles and successes of this new service
under the stress of war for which it was unprepared and I trust that
its perusal will create a public opinion that will insist upon chemical
preparation for war.
I feel that this book will show that the genius and patriotism
displayed by the chemists and chemical engineers of the country
were not surpassed in any other branch of war work and that to fail
to utilize in peace times this talent would be a crime.

William L. Sibert,
Major General, United States Army,
Retired.
 CONTENTS
page
Preface vii
Foreword ix
chapter
I. The History of Poison Gases 1
Modern Development of Gas
II. 10
Warfare
III. Development of the
Chemical Warfare Service 31
The Chemical Warfare Service in
IV. 72
France
V. Chlorine 116
VI. Phosgene 126
VII. Lachrymators 137
VIII. Chloropicrin 144
IX. Dichloroethylsulfide (Mustard Gas) 150
X. Arsenic Derivatives 180
XI. Carbon Monoxide 190
XII. Development of the Gas Mask 195
XIII. Absorbents 237
XIV. Testing Absorbents and Gas Masks 259
XV. Other Defensive Measures 272
XVI. Screening Smokes 285
XVII. Toxic Smokes 313
XVIII. Smoke Filters 322
XIX. Signal Smokes 330
XX. Incendiary Materials 336
XXI. The Pharmacology of War Gases 353
XXII. Chemical Warfare in Relation to
Strategy and Tactics 363
XXIII. The Offensive Use of Gas 385
XXIV. Defense against Gas 405
XXV. Peace Time Uses of Gas 427
XXVI. The Future of Chemical Warfare 435
Index 440
CHEMICAL WARFARE
 CHAPTER I
THE HISTORY OF POISON GASES [1]

The introduction of poison gases by the Germans at Ypres in

April, 1915, marked a new era in modern warfare. The popular
opinion is that this form of warfare was original with the Germans.
Such, however, is not the case. Quoting from an article in the Candid
Quarterly Review, 4, 561, “All they can claim is the inhuman
adoption of devices invented in England, and by England rejected as
too horrible to be entertained even for use against an enemy.” But
the use of poison gases is even of an earlier origin than this article
claims.
The first recorded effort to overcome an enemy by the generation
of poisonous and suffocating gases seems to have been in the wars
of the Athenians and Spartans (431-404 b.c.) when, besieging the
cities of Platea and Belium, the Spartans saturated wood with pitch
and sulfur and burned it under the walls of these cities in the hope of
choking the defenders and rendering the assault less difficult. Similar
uses of poisonous gases are recorded during the Middle Ages. In
effect they were like our modern stink balls, but were projected by
squirts or in bottles after the manner of a hand grenade. The legend
is told of Prester John (about the eleventh century), that he stuffed
copper figures with explosives and combustible materials which,
emitted from the mouths and nostrils of the effigies, played great
havoc.
The idea referred to by the writer in the Candid Quarterly Review,
is from the pen of the English Lord Dundonald, which appeared in
the publication entitled “The Panmure Papers.” This is an extremely
dull record of an extremely dull person, only rendered interesting by
the one portion, concerned with the use of poison gases, which, it is
said, “should never have been published at all.”
That portion of the article from the Candid Quarterly Review
dealing with the introduction of poisonous gas by the Germans, and
referred to in the first paragraph above, is quoted in full as follows:

“The great Admiral Lord Dundonald—perhaps

the ablest sea captain ever known, not even
excluding Lord Nelson—was also a man of wide
observation, and no mean chemist. He had been
struck in 1811 by the deadly character of the fumes
of sulphur in Sicily; and, when the Crimean War was
being waged, he communicated to the English
government, then presided over by Lord
Palmerston, a plan for the reduction of Sebastopol
by sulphur fumes. The plan was imparted to Lord
Panmure and Lord Palmerston, and the way in
which it was received is so illustrative of the trickery
and treachery of the politician that it is worth while to
quote Lord Palmerston’s private communication
upon it to Lord Panmure:

“Lord Palmerston to Lord Panmure

“‘House of Commons, 7th August, 1855 “‘I
agree with you that if Dundonald will go out himself
to superintend and direct the execution of his
scheme, we ought to accept his offer and try his
plan. If it succeeds, it will, as you say, save a great
number of English and French lives; if it fails in his
hands, we shall be exempt from blame, and if we
come in for a small share of the ridicule, we can
bear it, and the greater part will fall on him. You had
best, therefore, make arrangement with him without
delay, and with as much secrecy as the nature of
things will admit of.’

“Inasmuch as Lord Dundonald’s plans have

already been deliberately published by the two
persons above named, there can be no harm in now
republishing them. They will be found in the first
volume of ‘The Panmure Papers’ (pp. 340-342) and
are as follows:

“‘(Enclosure)
“‘Brief Preliminary Observations
“‘It was observed when viewing the Sulphur
Kilns, in July, 1811, that the fumes which escaped in
the rude process of extracting the material, though
first elevated by heat, soon fell to the ground,
destroying all vegetation, and endangering animal
life to a great distance, and it was asserted that an
ordinance existed prohibiting persons from sleeping
within the distance of three miles during the melting
season.
“‘An application of these facts was immediately
made to Military and Naval purposes, and after
mature consideration, a Memorial was presented on
the subject to His Royal Highness the Prince
Regent on the 12th of April, 1812, who was
graciously pleased to lay it before a Commission,
consisting of Lord Keith, Lord Exmouth and General
and Colonel Congreve (afterwards Sir William), by
whom a favorable report having been given, His
Royal Highness was pleased to order that secrecy
should be maintained by all parties.

“‘(Signed) Dundonald
“‘7th August, 1855’

“‘Memorandum
“‘Materials required for the expulsion of the
Russians from Sebastopol: Experimental trials have
shown that about five parts of coke effectually
vaporize one part of sulphur. Mixtures for land
service, where weight is of importance, may,
however, probably be suggested by Professor
Faraday, as to operations on shore I have paid little
attention. Four or five hundred tons of sulphur and
two thousand tons of coke would be sufficient.
“‘Besides these materials, it would be necessary
to have, say, as much bituminous coal, and a couple
of thousand barrels of gas or other tar, for the
purpose of masking fortifications to be attacked, or
others that flank the assailing positions.
“‘A quantity of dry firewood, chips, shavings,
straw, hay or other such combustible materials,
would also be requisite quickly to kindle the fires,
which ought to be kept in readiness for the first
favourable and steady breeze.

“‘Dundonald
“‘7th August, 1855’

“‘Note.—The objects to be accomplished being

specially stated the responsibility of their
accomplishment ought to rest on those who direct
their execution.
“‘Suppose that the Malakoff and Redan are the
objects to be assailed it might be judicious merely to
obscure the Redan (by the smoke of coal and tar
kindled in ‘The Quarries’), so that it could not annoy
the Mamelon, where the sulphur fire would be
placed to expel the garrison from the Malakoff,
which ought to have all the cannon that can be
turned towards its ramparts employed in
overthrowing its undefended ramparts.
 “‘There is no doubt but that the fumes will
envelop all the defenses from the Malakoff to the
Barracks, and even to the line of battleship, the
Twelve Apostles, at anchor in the harbour.
“‘The two outer batteries, on each side of the
Port, ought to be smoked, sulphured, and blown
down by explosion vessels, and their destruction
completed by a few ships of war anchored under
cover of the smoke.’
“That was Lord Dundonald’s plan in 1855,
improperly published in 1908, and by the Germans,
who thus learnt it, ruthlessly put into practise in
1915.
“Lord Dundonald’s memoranda, together with
further elucidatory notes, were submitted by the
English government of that day to a committee and
subsequently to another committee in which Lord
Playfair took leading part. These committees, with
Lord Dundonald’s plans fully and in detail before
them, both reported that the plans were perfectly
feasible; that the effects expected from them would
undoubtedly be produced; but that those effects
were so horrible that no honorable combatant could
use the means required to produce them. The
committee therefore recommended that the scheme
should not be adopted; that Lord Dundonald’s
account of it should be destroyed. How the records
were obtained and preserved by those who so
improperly published them in 1908 we do not know.
Presumably they were found among Lord
Panmure’s papers. Admiral Lord Dundonald himself
was certainly no party to their publication.”
One of the early, if not the earliest suggestion as to the use of
poison gas in shell is found in an article on “Greek Fire,” by B. W.
Richardson.[2] He says: