" Per Solis radios, Tarpeiaqiie fulmina jurat Et Manis frameani, et Cirrhffii spicula Vatis; Per calamos Veuairicis phaietianique Piiellae, Perque tunm pater ^gsei Neptune Iridentem ; Adilit et IJeiculeos aicus, hastainque Minerva;, Quidquid habeiit telorum annanieutaria coeli."
Indeed, the common profane oath of the English is but a translation ofthe"Dii me perdant" of classical antiquity. But the oaths of the ancients, however absurd or ridic- ulous, were infinitely exceeded in absurdity by the ex- uberant and grotesque jirofaneness of the Christians of the Middle Ages. They swore " by Sion and ^Mount Sinai," " by St. James's lance," " by the brightness of God," " by Christ's foot," " by nails and by blood," " by God's arms two" — they swore
"By the saintly bones and relics Scattered through the wide arena; Yea, the holy coat ot Jesus, And the foot of Magdaleiia."
Menu, the great lawgiver of the East, the son of the Self-existent, as he is termed in the sacred books of the Hindus, ordains that the judge, having assembled the witnesses in the court, should in the presence of the plaintiff and defendant address them as follows:
" What ye know to have been transacted in the matter before us, between the parties reciprocally, declare at large and with truth, for your evidence is required. . . .
"The witness who speaks falsely shall be fast bound under water in the snaky cords of Varnua, and lie shall be wholly deprived of power to escape torment during a hun- dred transmigrations ; let maukiud give ihereforelio false testimony.
"Naked and shorn, tormented with hunger and thirst, and deprived of sight, shall the man who giVes false tet^ti- inony go with a potsherd to beg bread at the door of his enemy. Headlong and in utter darkness shall the impious wretch tumble into hell, who, being interrngated in a ju- dicial inquiry, answers (Hie question falsely.
"The priest must be sworn by his veracity ; the soldier by his horse, or elephant, or weapons; the merchant by his kiue, grain, and gold ; the mechanic or servile man by imprecating on his head, if he speak falsely, all possible crimes."
In this code the guilt of perjury varies in intensity ac- cording to the subject-matter of testimony.
"By false testimony concerning cattle in general, the witness incurs the guilt of killing; five men : he kill.'* ten by false testimony concerning kine; he kills a bundled by false testimony concerning horses ; and a thousand by false testimony cunceniing the luiinan race."
But what is human life compared with gold, or with land ? The scale rises, the atrocity increases :
"By speaking falsely in a cause concerning gold, he kills, or incuis the guilt of killinir, the born and unlmrn ; by speaking falsely concerning land, he kills everything animated. Beware, then, of .•^peakin;; falsely concerning land. Marking well all the murders which are compre- hended in the crime of perjury, declare the whole truth as it was heard and as it was seen by thee."
Notwithstanding all this, pious falsehood — for instance, perjury to save life which would be forfeited by the rigor of the law — is not merely allowed, but approved, and eulogist ically termed " the speech of the gods."
"To a woman on a proposal of niarriap-e, in the case of grass or fiiiit eaten by a cow, of wood taken for a sacri- tire, or of a promise made for the i)reservaliou of a Brah- min, it is no deadly sin to take a slight oath."
Somewhat famous has been the lubricity of lovers' oaths. The lover swore, indeed ; but, as was said by the Greeks, oaths made in love never enter into the ears of the gods. This, probably, is the only code not only allowing and approving falsehoods by lovers, but by others. Various are the modes of administering an oath. A cow is some- times brought into court, that the witness may have the satisfaction of swearing with her tail in his hand; the leaf of the sweet basil and the waters of the Ganges are swallowed; the witness holds fire, or touches the head of his children or wife ; while the less orthodox follow- ers of Brahmin, those of the jungle tribes, impressed with the belief that if they swear falsely they shall be food for tigers, are sworn in the skin of one. Among the Mohammedans the oath is administered with the Koran on the head of the witness ; but it is not binding
OATH
261
OATH
unless taken in the express name of the Almighty, and then it is incomplete unless the witness, after having given in his evidence, again swears that he has spoken nothing but the truth. The oath is not worthy of credit unless taken in the name of God ; and the swearer must corroborate it by reciting the attributes of (iod, as, "I swear by the God besides wliom there is no other right- eous God, who is acquainted with what is hidden," etc.
Much of the judicial proceedings of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors rested upon oaths, and the punishment for their violation was severe. The perjurer was declared un- worthy of the ordeal, was incompetent as a witness, de- nied Christian burial, and classed with witches, murder- ers, and the most obnoxious members of society. Oaths were administered to the complainant in criminal pro- ceedings, and to the accused. The oath of the com- plainant was as follows : " In the Lord, I accuse not N either from hate, or art, or unjust avarice, nor do I know anything more true; but so my mind said to me, and I myself tell for truth that he was the thief of my goods." The accused swore as follows : ''In the Lord, I am inno- cent, both in word and deed, of that charge of which P accused me." The oath of the witness was : " In the name of Almighty God, as I stand here a true witness, unbidden and unbought, so I oversaw it with mine eyes, and even heard it in my ears, what I have said." From this it would appear that, in those early days before the inveterate chicanery of Norman jurisprudence had cursed English soil, it was usual to swear the parties — those who knew something about the matter. The different oaths of modern Europe — ordeal oaths, oaths of compurgators, decisory oaths, oaths of calumny, oaths militarj' and ma- sonic— might well deserve attention ; but we have al- ready, perhaps, occupied too much attention in reverting to the forms and usages of the past. There are but two instances of nations among whom oaths have not been adopted in judicial proceedings. Among the Chinese no oath is exacted by the magistrate upon the delivery of testimony. When they question each other's testi- mony, appeals to the gods are only made by cutting off the head of a fowl and wishing they may thus suffer, or blowing out a candle, and wishing they may thus be extinguished, if they do not speak the truth. The other instance is to be found in the code of laws formed with great judgment and much discrimination by the mis- sionaries at Tahiti, where, we believe, oaths have for the first time been abolished by Christian people (comp. Ellis, Polynesian Researches, p. 150).