Lucyna Kostuch, Beata

Wojciechowska
The oath in the ancient and medieval
culture : an outline of the problem
Scripta Classica 11, 23-39

2014
 Lucyna Kostuch, Beata Wojciechowska
Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce
Institute of History

The Oath in the Ancient and Medieval Culture

An Outline of the Problem

Abstract: Since the ancient period the oath was a kind of religious act, a declaration of fixed content
depending on the circumstances, intended to be delivered in public. It was a part of the agreements
between states, tributes, strengthening treaties, meeting obligations, fulfilling obligations and prom‑
ises. It was a means of evidence and a form of purification in court. It was sworn it public, according
to a specific ritual and completed with set activities and while recalling the names of gods or God as
witnesses. One of the ancient elements which survived the fall of the pagan world and was recorded
in the medieval oath was undoubtedly the formula of the promise, which was divided into: a solemn
declaration, a reference to a deity and a self­‍‑curse. The ancient and medieval perjurer was threat‑
ened with severe punishment – such a person could not find peace even after death. In both periods
keeping oaths was the measure of one’s piety. The solemn commitment belonged to the realm of the
sacred, as it was a part of a religious ritual. The basic gestures which accompanied the promise were
of ancient origins – a hand raised to the sky and touching sacred objects.

Keywords: oath, antiquity, the Middle Ages

T he oath (a solemn promise, commitment) is undoubtedly a part of the an‑

cient tradition. Although the “homeland” of the oath was the ancient Near
East, we know about it mainly from the Greek and Latin literature – the characters
from the works of Homer, Euripides and Virgil. The Oath of Hippocrates, Oath
of Horatii and Oath of Hannibal became a permanent part of the collection of
European themes. The aim of this paper is to compare the ancient oath with its
Christian “successor” which gained its full shape in the Middle Ages, and to an‑
24 Lucyna Kostuch, Beata Wojciechowska

swer the question of which elements of the oath survived the collapse of the an‑
cient world.
Indeed the Greeks and Romans were not the first ones who uttered the words
of the oath (horkos, iusiurandum) in the ancient world. The researchers believe
that the most ancient Greeks borrowed the model oath from the Near East peoples,
and its acquisition is proved in the oldest Greek literary work – the Iliad of
Homer.1 The sources from the ancient Near East reveal the model formula of the
oath which contained the three elements later known in Greece and Rome: the
statement, the list of the divine forces acting as witnesses and guarantors, and
finally, the self­‍‑curse.
In the act of a solemn commitment the peoples of Mesopotamia, Anatolia,
Syria and Egypt generally referred to witnesses such as the divine cosmic ele‑
ments: the Sun, the Sky, the Earth, as well as the sea and rivers. Of these, the
Sun which “could see everything” played the most prominent role. A well­‍‑known
example of the use of the above elements is the text of the peace treaty signed be‑
tween the pharaoh of Egypt and the king of the Hittites after the Battle of Kadesh
(1259 BC). The witnesses of the oath, and at the same time executors of the pun‑
ishment for the perjurer, were a thousand Egyptian and a thousand Hittite gods
and apart from them: Mountains, Heaven, Earth, the Great Sea, Winds and Storm
Clouds.2 The Israelites, though they only swore to Yahweh, that is “the name of
God” and “the life of the Lord,” who also appeared as a witness and the judge,3
could strengthen the credibility by referring to Heaven and Earth as the witnesses
to the purity of conscience and good intentions.4 The oath was also a profession of
faith in God.5 Similarly, the Near East gods swore to each other, and God of Israel
swore to himself.6
Also the gestures which accompanied the oath originated in the Near East: the
raising of a hand or hands to the sky, touching the recipient of the oath and dif‑
ferent objects. The most common iconographic example of a gesture is the relief
on the stela with the Laws of Hammurabi, which shows the king with his right
hand raised in front of the Sun god – Shamash, and a literary piece of evidence –
Abraham swearing and raising his hand to God in the Book of Genesis.7 In the act
1
P. K a r av it e s: Promise­‍‑Giving and Treaty­‍‑Making. Homer and the Near East. Leiden 1992;
L.M. We s t: The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Ox‑
ford 1997, pp. 19–20; W. B u r ke r t: Creation of the Sacred. Tracks of Biology in Early Religions.
Cambridge, Mass. 2001, pp. 171–172; J. F le t ch e r: Performing Oaths in Classical Greek Drama.
Cambridge 2012, p. 3.
2
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Ed. J.B. P r it ch a r d. Princeton
1955 (hereinafter referred to as ANET), pp. 199–201.
3
Deut 6, 13; 1 Sam 19, 6; Jer 4, 2; Gen 31, 50 and 53.
4
Jdt 7, 28; 1 Macc 2, 37.
5
Is 48, 1; Jer 12, 16.
6
Gen 22, 16; Ex 32, 13.
7
Gen 14, 22; see: Deut 32, 40; Ps 106; Dan 12, 7.
The Oath in the Ancient and Medieval Culture… 25

of commitment one used to touch his or the recipient’s intimate areas and hold the
written text of the oath and pieces of armor in the hand.
A solemn assurance that what one was saying was veracious, a promise
(commitment) to do or desist something, appeared widely in the Near East codi‑
fications, beginning with the Sumerians. In the evaluation of evidence they used
the oath, witnesses’ statements and written testimonies.8 A witness who testi‑
fied untruthfully under oath was subject to penalty. In the Book of Numbers and
Deuteronomy there were also regulations about the number of witnesses to the
promise.9
In the Middle East we also find the custom of slitting the throat of the sacri‑
ficed animal and dismembering its body, which was an allusion to what awaits
the perjurer. For this reason, the person taking an oath used to touch their throat.10
While imposing the self­‍‑curse, which could focus on the family, clan, distant de‑
scendants, and even the whole country, the eyes of wax figures were plucked out,
such figures were thrown into the fire, and bows and arrows were broken.
The formal similarities between the Near East and ancient oath (Greek and
Roman), or more broadly – the eastern and western oath,11 prove the existence
of a pattern for the ancient oath as such. There is no evidence that the oath
had evolved from the terrifying and spectacular (“savage,” “primitive”) to the sus‑
tainable (“civilized”). It was rather a permanent spectrum which, depending on
the circumstances, used more or less powerful phrases and gestures. Sometimes
a brief “I swear” was uttered, but other times there were even references to black
magic.12
Of course, the Greeks and Romans were aware of the similarities between
their own swearing tradition and the customs of other peoples. The differences
were mainly related to the gestures which were often more explicit and blunt in
the world of barbarians (barbaroi). From the works of Herodotus we learn about
drinking blood from each other’s incised arms or other body parts, cutting the
hand to rub stones with blood, drinking from the hand, licking the dust raised
from the ground and touching the graves.13 The Father of History did not think,
however, that the Greeks were superior to other nations in making promises and
their observance. Herodotus writes about the Persian trick which involved digging
a trench in the ground on which the oath was to be taken​, but on another occasion

8
See C. K u n d e r e w icz: Najstarsze prawa świata. Zbiór studiów. Łódź 1990, p. 15.
9
Num 35, 30; Deut 17, 6; 19, 15–20.
10
N. W e e k s: Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as
a Problem in Inter­‍‑Cultural Relationship. London 2004, p. 24.
11
Among others: J. B e d e r m a n: International Law in Antiquity. Cambridge 2001, p. 67;
M.L. We s t: The East Face of Helicon…, pp. 19–23.
12
J. F le t ch e r: Performing Oaths…, p. 10; C.A. Fa r a o n e: “Curses and Social Control in the
Law Courts of Classical Athens.” Dike 1999, vol. 2, pp. 99–121.
13
Hdt. 1, 74; 3, 7–8; 4, 70; 4, 172.
26 Lucyna Kostuch, Beata Wojciechowska

implies that the Greeks met on the markets in order to cheat each other and make
false promises.14 Several centuries later, when describing the first alliance made
by the Romans, Titus Livy stated that the oath had a permanent formula. Quoted
by the Roman historian, the solemn oath of Hannibal, who at the age of nine had
pledged to forever remain the enemy of Rome, had no signs of “barbaric” prac‑
tice, similarly to the oath of the Quadi described in the 4th century by Ammian
Marcelinus.15
Both the Greeks and Romans commonly made solemn promises as evidenced
by the source statistics: the Iliad and the Odyssey characters swear twenty­‍‑six
times, in the Histories by Herodotus there are about forty oaths, in the Peloponne‑
sian War – fifty, and counting every time an oath is mentioned – two hundred and
sixty­‍‑nine.16 Every Greek city­‍‑state had its own traditional (nomimos) oath and its
own theoi horkioi.17 Inside the polis each distinct group of citizens was bound with
an oath: tribes, phratries, city councils, courts judges, epheboi, the participants of
mysteries, agonists, religious fraternities, etc. It was no different in Rome, where
the sacred obligations were taken by, among others: consuls and low­‍‑rank officials,
soldiers, gladiators and liberated slaves. Among those who swore in the Greek
and Roman courts were the prosecutor, the defendant and witnesses. Although the
Greek sources show that in 478 BC as many as one hundred and fifty countries
took an oath to form the Delian League, the Romans certainly outdid the Greeks in
the number of people making a commitment. The Res Gestae reads that, in addi‑
tion to the entire Italy (tota Italia), Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily and Sardinia pledged
allegiance to Octavian in his fight against Cleopatra.18 In the vast Roman Empire,
probably since the time of Julius Caesar, oaths were taken on the genius of Caesar
and later on his health.
The ancient oath was sacred and cosmic in its character because its formula
produced an effect in the divine and human world in parallel. It was vital that
the gods and the people swore in the same way and under similar circumstances.
Although various deities in any number, even including “all gods,” could be in‑
voked to witness a solemn commitment, the oath remained permanently under the
care of the divine father Zeus (Zeus Horkios) and in Rome – Jupiter. As Homer
assured, Zeus “sees everything.”19 According to the sources people frequently

14
Hdt. 4, 201; 1, 153.
15
Liv. 1, 24: this oath includes all the typical elements of the Roman oath. F. H ick s o n ­‍‑ H a h n:
“Performing the Sacred: Prayers and Hymns.” In: A Companion to Roman Religion. Ed. J. R ü p ke.
Oxford 2007, pp. 241–242; oath of Hannibal: Liv. 21, 1; Quadi: Amm. Marc. 17, 12, 21.
16
C. C a l l aw ay: “Perjury and the Unsworn Oath.” TAPA 1993, vol. 123, pp. 15–25; D. L a t e i n ‑
e r: “Oaths: Theory and Practice in the Histories of Herodotus and Thucydides.” In: Thucydides and
Herodotus. Eds. E. Fo s t e r, D. L a t e i n e r. Oxford 2012, pp. 158, 171.
17
Thuc. 5, 47; A.H. S o m m e r s t e i n, A.J. B ayl i s s: Oath and State in Ancient Greece…, p. 164.
18
Res Gestae 25, 2.
19
Hom., Il. 3, 277.
The Oath in the Ancient and Medieval Culture… 27

turned to Helios (Sun), Gaia (Earth), but also rivers, especially the Styx which the
gods used to swear on. When the Macedonian king Philip II in 337 BC received
an oath from the representatives of the Greek states, they swore to: Zeus, Earth,
Sun, Poseidon, Athena, Ares and all the gods and goddesses.20 Virgil, following the
example of the Iliad, included Earth and Sun in the oath taken by Aeneas.21 The
most solemn oaths were sworn on the head of the supreme god. That is how Hera,
Hermes and Hestia made their commitments.22
Of course, depending on the circumstances, one could invoke various divine
“experts,” the spirits of the ancestors or the local gifts of nature. When talk‑
ing about courage and his homeland, the hero of Euripides swears to Zeus “be‑
tween the stars and bloody Ares.”23 Similarly, Aeneas calls Mars when grabbing
his sword.24 Demosthenes swore on the shadows of the Athenians’ ancestors, the
warriors who fought at Marathon, Artemision, Salamis, Plataea and all the heroes
buried in public graves.25 Often the local gods and heroes were invoked – in the
Plataean area deities of the Plataean pantheon appeared as witnesses.26 The oath
of the Athenian ephebes who were to defend their homeland, includes (Attican)
crops, barley, vines, olive and fig trees.27 The choice of the gods was based on the
local tradition, for instance, the Corinthians swore to Poseidon, while the Lacedae‑
monians preferred Castor and Pollux.28
In everyday trivial situations one could swear on anything. Pythagoras swore
on the numbers, and Socrates – on “the dog” (ma ton kuna), or on “the dog, the
god of the Egyptians.”29 Aristophanes presents the Athenian philosopher who calls
the Breath, the Chaos and the Expanse.30
Also the sex of the person making a promise played a role. In general, though
not mandatory, women referred to: Artemis, Aphrodite, Demeter, Persephone,
Hera and Hecate, and men preferred Hercules and Apollo. Similarly, in
Rome women swore to Venus, Juno, and also Castor, and men – Hercules
(Mehercule!), Penates, Genius and Pollux (though never Castor).31 It was believed

20
IG II 2, 236; P.J. R h o d e s, R. O s b o r n e: Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC. Oxford
2003, no. 76.
21
Verg., Aen. 12, 176–181; F. H ick s o n ­‍‑ H a h n: “The Oath of Aeneas: Vergil, Aeneid 12, 176–94.”
In: Prayer from Alexander to Constantine. Ed. M. K i le y, London–New York 1997, pp. 144–148.
22
Hom., Il. 15, 39; Hom. Hym. 4, 274; Hom. Hym. 5, 26–27; see I. To r r a n c e: “On Your Head
Be It Sworn: Oath and Virtue in Euripides’ Helen.” CQ 2009, vol. 59, pp. 1–7.
23
Eur., Phoen. 1006.
24
Verg., Aen. 12, 175.
25
Dem., De cor. 208.
26
Thuc. 2, 74.
27
P.J. R h o d e s, R. O s b o r n e: Greek Historical Inscriptions…, no. 88.
28
See: W. Sm it h: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Boston 1859, p. 660.
29
On the numbers: Luc., Vit. auct. 4; on the dog e.g.: Plat., Resp. 592 a; Plat., Grg. 482 b.
30
Aristoph., Nu. 627.
31
Terent., Andr. 495, 505; Hor., Ep. 1, 7, 94; Aul. Gel. 11, 6.
28 Lucyna Kostuch, Beata Wojciechowska

that women were inherently more perfidious. Sophocles believed that a woman’s
oath “is written on the water.”32 It is known that the ancient warriors used to
compare the defeated enemy to women, therefore it is possible that the soldier’s
oath, similarly to a Hittite oath, was threatened with turning the perjurer into
a woman.33
The ancient oath was combined with specific gestures. The Greek gods
touched the head of Zeus or elements of nature and simultaneously evoke them
as witnesses. Hestia, when promising to keep virginity, touched the head of the
supreme god. Hera put one hand on the Earth, the other – on the Sea.34 Only the
gods could do so. The Greeks and Romans used to put a hand on the statue of the
god to whom they swore or touch the bloody ceremonial sacrifice with a hand
or a weapon, and even kept animal entrails (splanchna) in the hands. Tradition‑
ally, as in a prayer, hands were raised to the sky.35 To imitate the gods, parts of
the body of the recipient of the oath were touched (head, knees or other). Of‑
ten a hand of that person was shook (Gr. dexiosis, Lat. Dextrarum iunctio).36 Ad‑
ditionally, people swore on items such as mace, sword, and spear, which were
probably ritually touched.37 In Rome, the soldiers swore (sacramentum) on
the military signs, the signa.38 In the oath to Jupiter, nicknamed Lapis (Stone),
the words of the promise were spoken with a stone in a hand, which was later
dropped.39
Of course, depending on whether it was a spell in an ordinary conversation,
a private vow or a public oath, and whether the content was related to a murder
or state affairs, its formula was expanded, especially the last part – the self­‍‑curse.
Perjury (epiorkia, periurium) was punished by the gods with equal severity in
the divine and human world, hence in reality the penalty reached only those who
made a false statement in court (pseudomartyrion, falsum testimonium). In the
Hellenistic period breaking the oath sworn to the King (basilikos horkos) and in
Rome to Caesar (laesa maiestas) was also prosecuted. The rest was left to the gods
(Deorum iniuriae dis curae). Therefore, there was no exaggeration when Cicero
insisted that many alliances last due to the religious ceremonies which accompany
them, and the fear of god’s punishment was the best protection against crime.40
Keeping promises was the key measure of human devotion in the ancient period.41
32
Soph. Fr. 811 Radt.
33
KBo 6, 34; 2, 46–3,1.
34
Hom. Hym. 5, 27; Hom., Il. 14, 271–273.
35
IG I 3, 254, 10–24; Aesch., Sept. 42–48; Soph., Trach. 1183; Verg., Aen. 12, 201; Liv. 21, 1;
21, 45; Hdt. 6, 68; Hom., Il. 3, 275.
36
Aristoph., Nu. 81; Eur., Med. 496–497.
37
Hom., Il. 1, 233–246; Aesch., Sept. 529–532; Eur., Phoen. 1677; Verg., Aen. 12, 175.
38
Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 6, 45; Liv. 26, 48, 12.
39
Polyb. 3, 26; Fest., s.v. Lapidem.
40
Cic., Leg. 2, 16.
41
J. M i k a l s o n: Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy. Chapel Hill 1991, p. 80.
The Oath in the Ancient and Medieval Culture… 29

The person who took the oath remained sanctified (sacrosanctus) and breaking the
promise was an act of impiety (impietas).
The least severe self­‍‑curse was the one in which the punishment could reach
only the person who swore. The “criminal” was frequently threatened with exile,
with the proviso that even after his death neither the land nor the sea could accept
him back.42 In the Iliad the violator’s brain might flow to the ground, and his fam‑
ily might be captured.43 In Hades, the place for perjurers was mud.44 A perjurer god
was deprived of breath for a year and forbidden to eat ambrosia and nectar. Over
the next nine years had to remain on the sidelines, with no right to participate in
the divine meetings and feasts.45
A more cruel formula implied “eternal” punishment which could reach even
the distant descendants and the whole family.46 There was no hesitation to swear
on the well­‍‑being of children. It is evidenced in the oath of allegiance given by
the inhabitants of Paphlagonia to Augustus – they swore on their children, the
entire family and the descendants with their belongings.47 Perhaps in the Greco-
Roman world the habit of touching intimate areas while taking an oath appeared
locally, which strengthened the curse cast on the offspring. According to J.R. Katz,
Iguvine tablets provide the evidence. The formula of the Umbrian promise con‑
tains information about holding urfeta in a hand, which the researcher translates
as “testicles.”48 Most probably the ritual of cutting off the genital of a sacrificial
animal had similar meaning.49
Not all of the elements listed above always occurred in the swearing cere‑
mony. Undoubtedly, a bloody sacrifice – the act of slaughtering an animal throat
– was only mandatory for public ceremonies and of the utmost importance, such
as signing international treaties and games (agon). The ritual of killing an animal
is present in the Iliad, where the Achaeans and Trojans sacrifice a white ram and
a black sheep.50 In The Seven Against Thebes a bull is killed and its blood, on
which the warriors take an oath, is put into the shield. In the Anbabasis the killed
animals on the shield are: an ox, a wolf, a wild boar and a sheep.51 The bodies of
such animals were buried or thrown into the sea or river.52 The Molossians from
the Epirus region used to quarter an ox into small pieces and pray that the perjurers
42
Eur., Hipp. 1028–1029.
43
Hom., Il. 3, 298–301.
44
Aristoph., Ran. 273.
45
Hes., Th. 775–806.
46
Hdt. 6, 86; Antiph. 5, 11; Dem. 23, 67–68.
47
OGIS II 532.
48
II b 23; J.R. K a t z: “Testimonia ritus Italici: Male Genitalia, Solemn Declarations, and a New
Sound Law.” HSCP 1998, vol. 98, pp. 183–217.
49
W. B u r ke r t: Creation of the Sacred…, p. 174.
50
Hom., Il. 3, 73–107, 292.
51
Aesch., Sept. 42–48; Xen. An. 2, 2, 10.
52
Hom., Il. 3, 310; 19, 267.
30 Lucyna Kostuch, Beata Wojciechowska

would be dismembered in the same way.53 Although Pausanias, while admiring the
statue of Zeus Horkios at Olympia where players used to swear, forgets to ask the
locals what they did with the killed boar, he assures that aforetime the animal was
not intended for human consumption.54 In Rome a hog was killed with a piece of
flint and Jupiter was asked to strike at the perjurer with equal power.55
In the case of an oath of state importance there were often additional elements,
sometimes unique. If a decision concerned the whole country lumps of iron were
thrown into the sea, and the covenant was to apply until they floated to the surface.
The Phokaians did so when they decided to move to another area and never return
to their homeland.56 The same was done when the Delian League was established.
In the ancient period, a unique element of the oath, however of eastern origin, was
the act of throwing wax figures into the fire by the colonists who sailed from Thera
to establish Cyrene.57
The ancient documents lead to a conclusion that oaths were sometimes manip‑
ulated. Even the gods were insincere. In the Homeric Hymn Hermes took a false
oath.58 From the example given by Thucydides it can be concluded that interna‑
tional agreements could contain a clause which stated that the oath would be kept
if it is allowed by the gods and heroes.
As early as in the Greek period prohibition of swearing appeared occasionally.
Apparently Pythagoras forbade his followers to swear to the gods, as he claimed
that a man himself must be credible.59
The Greeks and Romans, those who “cheated each other among oaths,” were
condemned by Christians, who recognized the abuse of solemn vows for the sin
of idolatry. In the Gospel of Matthew swearing on heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and
one’s own head are prohibited.60 Tertullian believed that because of the manda‑
tory oaths Christians should not serve public offices, and even the colloquial “by
Hercules!” (Mehercule!) was found by him as a sign of idolatry.61 St. Augustine
believed that the tendency to perjury was a sign of the degeneration of the pagan
customs.62
From the moral point of view, perjury has always been regarded by Christians
as a grave sin.63 The Bible considers perjury as a desecration of the God’s name
53
Suda s.v. Bous; Zen. 2, 83.
54
Paus. 5, 24, 9–10.
55
Liv. 1, 24.
56
Hdt. 1, 165.
57
SEG 9, 3.
58
Hom. Hym. 4, 275–277.
59
Diog. Laert. 8, 22; Iamb., Vit. Pyth. 47.
60
Matt. 5, 34–36.
61
Tert., De idol. 17, 20.
62
Aug., De civ. 3, 2.
63
Corpus Iuris Canonici. Ed. A. Fr ie d b e r g. Graz 1959; CIC, vol. 2: Decretales Gregorii IX:
X. 2. 1. 13., pp. 242–244; CIC, vol. 1: Decretum Gratiani: C. 22. q. 5. 5., p. 883: Ille qui hominem
The Oath in the Ancient and Medieval Culture… 31

(Lev 19, 12), a result of idolatry which brings disasters (Wis 14, 25, 29, Jer 5, 2;
Zechariah 5, 3–4), a sin condemned by the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20, 7),
which demands the punishment from God (Sir 23, 11). The prophets warned about
perjury (Ezekiel 17, 13–19). The Apostle Paul put it among the bad deeds which
are subject to the law (1 Tim 1, 10). Perjury was committed by anybody who
knowingly confirmed untruth with an oath or swore something which they were
convinced that was not true. From the legal standpoint, it was a crime.
Until the 4th century the Church was very reserved in terms of taking oaths,
however, this attitude began to change in the 5th century. The legislations of Gal‑
lic synods, from the 5th to the 7th century, introduced an oath on the Gospel,
which became part of the Church’s right to asylum. The bishops tried to im‑
pose church law on all actions which were directly associated with the Church.
In 441, the First Council of Orange forbade slave owners to take their subjects
from the Church citing reverentia et intercessio loci. Then, in 511, the First
Council of Orleans allowed to give out killers, adulterers and thieves only if the
victim swore ​​on the Gospel that they would not kill, maim, or inflict arbitrary
punishment on the offender. The bishops resigned from the form of intercession
(intercessio) in favour of the oath (sacramentum), which probably resulted from
the strengthening of the church law and moving away from institutions similar to
secular law.64
According to Justinian’s legislation, the oath could be considered as evidence
in a trial.65 Since the early Christianity many principles of the Roman law were
adopted by the Church.66 The Comparison of Mosaic and Roman Laws from the
late 4th century recorded that perjury was punishable by death, and making a false
statement – by exile, sending on an island or exclusion from the senate or city
council.67
Pope Gregory the Great (590–604) in his letter addressed to John Defender,
the papal envoy to Spain, contained instructions on the settlement of disputes.

provocat ad iuramentum, scit, eum falsum esse iuratum, vincit homicidam, quia homicidia corpus
occisurus est, ille animam, immo duas animas et eius, quem iurare provocavit, et suam. Scis, verum
esse quod dicis, et fal sum quo ille dicit, et iurare conpellis.
64
K. B u r cz a k: Prawo azylu w ustawodawstwie synodów galijskich V–VII wieku. Lublin 2005,
pp. 86–87, 221.
65
A. D ę bi ń s k i: Kościół i prawo rzymskie. Lublin 2008, pp. 56–57; W. Lit e w s k i: Rzymskie
prawo prywatne. Warszawa 2003, pp. 250–251, 378–379, 398, 435.
66
A letter attributed to Pope Alexander I (around 105–115), addressed to all of the faithful,
contained guidelines on the taking of evidence in criminal ecclesiastical cases. According to these
recommendations, the court was not allowed to punish on the basis of a forced confession to the
crime. Epistola 1 Alexandri Papae I ad omnes orthodoxos. In: J.D. M a n si: Sacrorum conciliorum
nova et amplissima collectio. Florentiae–Paris–Leipzig 1759, vol. 1, pp. 637–638; CIC, vol.1: Decre‑
tum Gratiani: C. 15. q. 6. 1., p. 754.
67
Zbiór prawa Mojżeszowego i rzymskiego (prawo boskie, które Pan przekazał Mojżeszowi).
Trans. A. D ę bi ń s k i. Lublin 2011, p. 119.
32 Lucyna Kostuch, Beata Wojciechowska

They concerned irregularities in judicial decisions. The Pope ordered John to veri‑
fy whether the testimony against one of the bishops, against whom the proceedings
were already pending, was sworn under oath (sub iureiurando).68 This requirement
resulted from the Roman procedural law. Antoni Dębiński believes that it was
a iusiurandum calumniae, an oath used in cognitio extra ordinem. First of all,
it was taken by the prosecutor who swore that the trial was not calumniae cau‑
sa, that is, contrary to his conviction about groundlessness of the proceeding. In
Justinian’s legislation also the process deputies and lawyers were required to take
this oath. In Justinian’s period the parties guaranteed the good will of the witnesses
with an oath.69 This form of oath also appeared in the later records of the medieval
canon law.
Breaking an oath was threatened with criminal sanction in the form of exclu‑
sion of the perjurer from the community. An oath given to those who asked for
asylum in the church was of great value – it obliged the conscience and was ex‑
pressed outside, in front of God and the Church community.
Latin terms referring to the oath are also noteworthy. In 511, at the First
Council of Orleans, the name sacramentum was used, and in 517, at the Council
of Epaone – iuramentum. The term sacramentum was ambiguous. In Roman law
it meant a certain amount of money, religious rites, the teaching of the truths of
faith, the sacraments, a sacred dignity, the military oath and the oath in general.
The term iuramentum was more precise as it referred to the oath, a solemn com‑
mitment, or evidence in a trial.70 Justinian’s rights applied the two terms simultane‑
ously, even in a single act. In all cases where an oath was mandatory, the parties
were required to swear either directly to the judge, or at home, or by touching the
Bible, or in the temple. In the 6th century, in the Frankish kingdoms the oath was
taken by placing the hands on the altar with the simultaneous uttering of the con‑
tent of the oath.71
It is worth noting that in the rights of the barbarian peoples, particularly Ger‑
manic, the oath, taken on a platform and with an appropriate to its seriousness
number of the co­‍‑swearing, was a piece of evidence in itself. The co­‍‑swearing

68
Gregorii I Papae registrum epistolarum, vol. 2. Ed. L.M. H a r t m a n n. In: MGH Epistolae,
vol. 2. Berolini 1899, pp. 410–418.
69
A. D ę bi ń s k i: Kościół i prawo…, p. 57; The Constitution of the Emperor Constantine in
334 required the witnesses to take an oath before they could testify. In Roman law calumnia was
a deliberate false accusation in the criminal or civil lawsuit. In the civil lawsuit calumnia was also
a deliberate, unfounded denial of the plaintiff’s complaint by the defendant. The term was also
understood as an incitement to an unfounded criminal complaint and an unjust denunciation in
a criminal lawsuit. Cf. W. Lit e w s k i: Rzymski proces karny. Kraków 2003, p. 109 ff.
70
Ibidem, pp. 106–107.
71
Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis Libri historiarum X. Eds. B. K r u s ch, W. L e v i s o n; MGH
Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, vol. 1, pars 1. Hannoverae 1951, ks. V, c. 3, pp. 196–197; G r z e ‑
go r z z To u r s: Historie. Historia Franków. Trans. K. Li m a n, T. R icht e r. Ed. D.A. Si ko r s k i.
Tyniec–Kraków 2002, book V, part 3, pp. 207–208.
The Oath in the Ancient and Medieval Culture… 33

were not witnesses and did not testify, but by the sacred act of the common oath
gave a kind of guarantee that the man before the court was truthful. They linked
their own credibility with the credibility of the accused. This act was extremely
important. The perjurer risked not only the temporal punishment, but also a terrify‑
ing supernatural punishment.72 In the Germanic laws, oaths were sworn on the Sun
and Moon, or more generally – astronomical objects.
In the pre­‍‑Christian era the Slavs swore to various deities (Perun, Veles, the
god­‍‑sun), called them as witness to their truthfulness and asked for their pun‑
ishing intervention in the case of perjury. According to Helmold, they swore on
trees, fountains and stones, however, as the chronicler stresses, they swore
reluctantly because of the fear of perjury and divine punishment.73 For the Slavs
taking an oath was connected with reaching to, touching or kissing the ground.
According to Aleksander Brückner the term przysięgać (swear) referred to the
proto­‍‑Slavic sękti, sęgą, that is “to reach,” which referred to the contact with the
earth.74 By reaching or bowing towards the earth, its mighty power was summoned
to become a witness to the words, the guarantor of one’s liability. An echo of this
old oath was the folk culture formula: Let the earth swallow me, with clear biblical
connotations.75 It was a form of self­‍‑cursing in case one was lying. In the semantic
context the term “oath” can be derived from the proto­‍‑Slavic klęti, that is “curs‑
ing,” which was the penalty for breaking an oath or perjury. One who “cursed” un‑
fairly, cursed himself and experienced the same consequences as those who were
the subject of the cursing. Putting oneself in the pledge was done with a gesture
typical of the old touch magic, that is by touching the chest, and for women also
the plait.76
A special role was played by the oath on the Sun, the source of life and an all-
seeing deity. By taking this kind of an ancient oath one called the Sun, or a solar
deity, mostly with their face and fingers outstretched to the Sun or to the east. Wla‑
dyslaw Semkowicz classified it as a relict of the ancient legal practices.77 Certain
parallels can be discerned in the Jewish ritual oath. While uttering iuramentum
a Jew had to turn his face towards the rising Sun and stand bare feet on a stool.
Such behaviour can be associated with a warning for the perjurer that his sin could
be punished with deprivation of the view of the light of God.78
72
K. Mo d z ele w s k i: Barbarzyńska Europa. Warszawa 2004, pp. 155–157.
73
Helmoldi Presbyteri Bozoviensis Cronica Slavorum. Ed. B. S ch m e id le r. Hannoverae 1937
(MGH SRG), p. 160, c. 84.
74
A. Br ü ck n e r: Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Warszawa 1993, p. 490.
75
K. Mo s z y ń s k i: Kultura ludowa Słowian, vol. 2, part 1. Warszawa 1968, p. 512.
76
A. E n gel k i n g: Klątwa. Rzecz o ludowej magii słowa. Wrocław 2000, pp. 123–130.
77
W. S e m kow icz: “Przysięga na słońce.” In: Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Bolesława Orzecho‑
wicza. Vol. 2. Lwów 1916, pp. 304–377.
78
H. Z a r e m s k a: “Iuramentum Iudeorum – żydowska przysięga w średniowiecznej
Polsce.” In: E scientia et amicitia. Studia poświęcone Profesorowi Edwardowi Potkowskiemu
w sześćdziesięciolecie urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej. Warszawa–Pułtusk 1999, p. 239.
34 Lucyna Kostuch, Beata Wojciechowska

The texts of the oaths­‍‑curses from the 10th century on the Slavic deities were
recorded in the Tale of Bygone Years. The formulas were uttered when contracts
were signed between Rus’ and Byzantium. An important role in this ritual was
played by weaponry and the symbol of Christianity – the Cross. Christians kissed
the Cross and the pagan Russians swore on their swords and gods, Perun and
Volos. Those who broke the agreement were subject to eternal damnation or the
plight of the afterlife.79
In the Western early­‍‑ and mid­‍‑medieval tradition people often swore on the
relics of saints, the Cross and less often the Books of the Gospel. A complement
to the content of the uttered words, which called the help of God, was the gesture
of connected fingers of the right hand. It was recorded as a sign of the oath in the
9th­‍‑century manuscript containing the work of Terence (195 BC–159 BC) Hecyra.
The marginal note on the side of the miniature comments on the gesture of a raised
right hand with an outstretched index and middle finger: a prostitute called Bac‑
chis gave an oath to the old Laches that she had not tried to seduce Pamfila80. This
was a copy of the gesture of Christ, widespread in the medieval iconography, with
his right hand raised, the first three fingers outstretched and the other two bent,
symbolizing the ruler and judge of the world. It also meant a blessing by God. In
the Eastern Churches the two fingers symbolized the two natures of Christ, divine
and human. Touching the Crucifix, the visible symbol of the presence of the Lord,
produced a kind of communion with Christ.81 In this sense, the oath was a magical
gesture which was associated with an immediate spiritual effect.
In the early Middle Ages perjury was not distinguished from breaking of an
oath. The first occurred while declaring an oath (iuramentum assertorium) if
the will was not consistent with the statement. The second, combined with a prom‑
ising oath (iuramentum promissum), took place when the person who swore
did not meet the obligations. Both crimes were together determined as perjury
(periurium).82
Regino of Prüm believed that if a person had ever been guilty of perjury,
they could not be a witness in any case, receive the sacraments or be a judge.
If a false oath was taken by a priest, he was to be punished with excommunica‑
tion bienni temporal. In the case of a false oath on the sacrament, the penitent
could not receive the Body and Blood of Christ for a period of one year, had to

79
P. B o r o ń: “Pogańskie motywy w ceremoniach społecznych dawnych Słowian.” In: Bogowie
i ich ludy. Religie pogańskie a procesy tworzenia się tożsamości kulturowej, etnicznej, plemiennej
i narodowej w średniowieczu. Ed. L.P. S ł u p e ck i. Wrocław 2008, pp. 62–64.
80
J.­‍‑C. S ch m it t: Gest w średniowiecznej Europie. Trans. H. Z a r e m s k a. Warszawa 2006,
pp. 102–103, 163–180.
81
M. Lu r ke r: Przesłanie symboli w mitach, kulturach i religiach. Kraków 1994, pp. 271, 336;
E. Po t kow s k i: “Autorytet prawa w średniowieczu.” In: Kultura prawna w Europie środkowej.
Ed. A. B a r c i a k. Katowice 2006, pp. 15–33.
82
L. Kol m e r: Promissorische Eide im Mittelalter. Kallmünz 1989, pp. 319–320.
The Oath in the Ancient and Medieval Culture… 35

observe fasting and give alms.83 The Decrees of Burchard distinguished between
perjury committed as a result of greed, deliberate perjury and committed to save
one’s live. In each case, various forms of penance were imposed. The sinner had
to fast on bread and water for forty days and seven years, as well as on all Fri‑
days of the year, also, sell their property and give the money out to the poor.
There was also a “useless” oath – made to a prostitute, an adulterer, or against
the canons – which had to be broken in order to avoid the shame and sin.84 The
sanction for perjury was excommunication, similarly to adultery and murder if
committed knowingly and voluntarily. A priest was also subject to degradation and
infamy.
In the Decree of Gratian the oath was understood as a conscious act of will,
which enforced a behaviour in accordance with one’s conscience. This specific
relationship with God was closely linked with the intention, a particular inner plan
which should not serve to the words, but the words should serve to the plan (inten‑
tion). God understands the oath in the same way as the one who takes it, because
“the one who receives does not hear the words from the depths of the soul, but
from what comes out on the outside.”85 The oath is primarily judged by God ac‑
cording to the intention of the one who takes it. The use of deception in receiving
the oath was condemned. Not only did God, despiser of ambiguity, take into ac‑
count the intention of the one who was taking the oath, but also of the one who was
receiving it, who could manipulate and deceive with cunning words.86 The Liber
extra by Gregory IX allowed to exempt from an oath which was connected with
the wickedness of the receiver.87 It was pointed out that there should be no dif-
ference between an oath and the statement of the faithful before the court.88 Perjury
in an oath, and lies in a statement were not allowed as they were sins which led
to eternal damnation of the soul. Anyone who speaks the truth swears that it was
written “a faithful witness will not lie.” Decree writer, Rufin, indicated that noth‑
ing exempts from liability for perjury, even if the sin was committed in exceptional
circumstances.89 In the decretals of Gregory IX anyone who deliberately acted
against an oath permitted by the law was considered a perjurer.90 Bishops were to
be punished more severely for perjury than others.91 It was suggested that an oath
resulting from fear was to be kept, however, Celestine III believed that those who

83
Reginonis Prümiensis Abbatis: De ecclesiasticis disciplinis et religione christiana. In: Patro-
logia Latina. Ed. J.P. M ig n e. Paris 1854, vol. 132, book II, parts 313, 320, 321, pp. 344, 346.
84
Księgi pokutne. Layout and edn. A. B a r o n, H. P ie t r a s. Kraków 2011, pp. 374–375.
85
Decretum Gratiani: C. 22. q. 5. 11., pp. 885–886.
86
Decretum Gratiani: C. 22. q. 5. 13., p. 886.
87
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 2. 24. 1., p. 359.
88
Decretum Gratiani: C. 22. q. 5. 12., p. 886.
89
H. Si n ge r: Die Summa decretorum des Magister Rufinus. Paderborn 1902, p. 401.
90
Decretales Gregorii IX: X.2.24.10., p. 362.
91
Decretales Gregorii IX: X.2.24.12., p. 363.
36 Lucyna Kostuch, Beata Wojciechowska

were forced to swear under the threat of loss of life and property can be exempt
from the oath.92
The idea and practice of the oath was under the influence of the developing
feudal law. From the 11th century the popes received oaths from lay and secular
people as a sign of respect for the rights of the Holy See and loyalty to every
Vicar of St. Peter. The oath was an act which guaranteed loyalty.93 The Council of
Clermont in 1095 prohibited the clergy from receiving offices and Church prop‑
erty from lay people, and forbade bishops and priests to take the oath of fidelity
with their hands folded on the king’s hand or any other lay person.94 The ban was
intended to deprive laity of the possibility to dispose of ecclesiastical offices and
goods. Most of the political agreements which involved taking the oath did not
have additional consequences, apart from the typical obligations: to remain loyal
to the Pope, preserve peace, respect the rights of the Church and pay the traditional
papal tributes.95
In this context, the formulas of bishops’ oaths seem to be worth attention.96
The old formulas included in the Liber Diurnus required the hierarchy to be de‑
cisive on the matters of faith and fully devoted to the Pope as the head of the
Church.97 The 11th-century oaths mainly related to bishops’ administrative func‑
tions. Every bishop swore allegiance to St. Peter, the Church, the Pope and his
successors, renounced acts of treason, promised to give advice while maintaining
confidentiality, and swore to protect papatus Romanus et sancti Petri regalia. Also
they promised to welcome the papal legates, arrive at synods and once a year visit
ad liminas Apostolorum. The oldest form of the oath was a pledge made to Pope
Alexander II by Archbishop of Ravenna Wibert during the consecration in 1073.98
It became a standard formula which was used by all subordinate to the Pope and
with a few minor changes was incorporated in 1234 into Liber extra of Gregory
IX, becoming a law of the Church.99 However, oaths of this kind could contain
more promises. Pope Celestine III (1191–1198) in his letter addressed to the Arch‑
bishop of Ravenna, Wilhelm, reminded him of the oath of fidelity which obliged

92
Decretales Gregorii IX: X.2.24.15., p. 364.
93
E. M a g n o u ­‍‑ No r t ie r: “Fidélité et féodalité méridionales d’aprés les serments de fidélité.”
Annales du Midi 1986, vol. 80, p. 457–484.
94
J.D. M a n si: Sacrorum conciliorum. Vol. 20, c. 15, 17, p. 817.
95
S. Re y n old s: Lenna i wasale. Reinterpretacja średniowiecznych źródeł. Kęty 2011,
pp. 452–463.
96
T. G o t t lo b: Der kirchliche Amtseid der Bischöfe. Bonn 1936, pp. 11, 170 ff.
97
Liber Diurnus Romanorum pontificum, ex unico codice Vaticana. Ed. T. R it t e r vo n Sick‑
el. Wien 1889, pp. 69 ff.
98
Deusdedit: Collectio canonum. Ed. V. Wol f vo n Gl a nvel l. Paderborn 1905, vol. 1, p. 599;
E.H. K a nt o r ow icz: Dwa ciała króla. Studium ze średniowiecznej teologii politycznej. Warszawa
2007, pp. 278–279.
99
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 2. 24. 4., p. 360.
The Oath in the Ancient and Medieval Culture… 37

him not to alienate the properties of the Holy See.100 Celestine’s successor, Pope
Innocent III, reminded the Archbishop of Milan that he was bound by the oath
and was obliged not to give any fiefs without prior consultation with the Pope.101
Bernard of Parma, who around 1245 wrote Glossa ordinaria to Liber Extra, com‑
mented on the decretals of Celestine III: “Every bishop directly subordinate to the
Pope swears to him that he would not alienate any church property or give it afresh
as a fief.”102
A special form of the oath, which evolved in the medieval canon law, was the
canonical purgation – iuramentum purgatorium. St. Augustine allowed for oaths
on relics to clean oneself of charges, but did not recommend strengthening prom‑
ises in this way as he was worried that a failure to keep the promise could lead to
sacrilege.103
A person taking the purgation oath swore before the judge and invoked God
as a witness of their innocence. It could be taken when the accused had no other
evidence to prove their guiltlessness. It was forbidden if the crime was notorious,
or had been proved by credible prosecution or in any other way.104 A priest taking
the purgation oath before his supervisor had to promise that he was innocent of the
charges, and that he had not committed any crimes since the adoption of the dig‑
nity of the Church.105 Initially the purgation oath was taken only by the clergy who
were required to provide a positive proof of innocence. Iuramentum purgatorium
restored the reputation which had been violated by the suspicion. Over time, the
procedure was extended on all those who could not be fully proven of committing
the crime. The seriousness of the accusation could be suspended by the priest from
his office and benefice until purgation.
Under the influence of Germanic law the custom of strengthening the oath
with an oath sworn by the witnesses was introduced. The witnesses (compurga‑
tores, consacramentales, coniuratores) acted as guarantors. Their sworn state‑
ment confirmed the credibility of the accused, rather than his innocence, therefore,
they confirmed that they believed that the accused had sworn the truth – quo sicut
ipsi credunt eum verum iuravit.106 Their oath was called iuramentum credulitatis.
The number of the co­‍‑swearing witnesses was different depending on the case
and the dignity of the person being purified. In some cases there were three,

100
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 3. 13. 8., p. 514.
101
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 3. 20. 2., p. 525.
102
E.H. K a nt o r ow icz: Dwa ciała króla…, p. 280.
103
M. St a r n aw s k a: Świętych życie po życiu. Relikwie w kulturze religijnej na ziemiach
polskich w średniowieczu. Warszawa 2008, p. 405.
104
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 5. 34. 14.; X. 5. 34. 15., p. 875.
105
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 5. 34. 16., p. 877.
106
Decretum Gratiani: C. 2. q. 5. 17., p. 460; Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 5. 34. 5. 9. 13.,
pp. 870, 872, 875.
38 Lucyna Kostuch, Beata Wojciechowska

five, seven, twelve, or even fourteen witnesses.107 They had to have a good reputa‑
tion and know the life of the purified.108 The clergy usually looked for witnesses
among the priests of the same rank, and other people called relatives, neighbours
and friends. Not only could the canon purgation be applied in a formal indictment,
but also in defamation. In the latter case, the bishop could ask to take the purgation
oath unless the suspect referred to a senior judge.109 A refusal to appear in court
to prove one’s innocence by canon purgation was considered to be an admission
of guilt.110 The purification by the canonical oath was based on the belief that
a person uttering the words of iuramentum would not dare to insult God with
perjury.
Iuramentum calumniae was to prevented falsehood in the canonical trial. The
decretals of Gregory IX forbade the clergy to take an oath against a false accusa‑
tion, allowing the opportunity to deliver it by the representatives of those clergy in
the matters of specific churches. However, it was stressed that a bishop without the
consent of the Pope, and other clergy without the consent of the supervisor should
not take such an oath.111 It was also forbidden to take it in spiritual matters.112 Yet it
was allowed to take that oath on the soul of the person swearing (in animam iuran‑
tis) after a careful consideration of the subject matter and the people involved.113
Boniface VIII specified these issues in more detail, indicating that iuramentum
calumniae could be made at any stage of judicial proceedings, and its omission
would not reverse the trial.
The oath was an important means of ensuring the truth, a moral obligation, and
in the canon law an essential element of judicial procedure and of almost all legal
actions, as well as an independent procedural means of evidence.
Since the ancient period the oath was a kind of religious act, a declaration of
fixed content depending on the circumstances, intended to be delivered in public. It
was a part of the agreements between states, tributes, strengthening treaties, meet‑
ing obligations, fulfilling obligations and promises. It was a means of evidence
and a form of purification in court. It was sworn it public, according to a specific
ritual and completed with set activities and while recalling the names of gods or
God as witnesses.
One of the ancient elements which survived the fall of the pagan world and
was recorded in the medieval oath was undoubtedly the formula of the promise
which was divided into: a solemn declaration, a reference to a deity and a self-

107
Decretum Gratiani: C. 2. q. 5. 12., pp. 458–459; C. 2. q. 5. 19., p. 462; Decretales Gregorii
IX: X. 5. 34. 10., pp. 872–874.
108
Decretum Gratiani: C. 2. q. 5. 19., p. 462; Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 5. 34 .7. 9., pp. 871–872.
109
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 5. 34. 6., pp. 871.
110
Decretum Gratiani: C. 3. q. 9. 10., pp. 531.
111
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 2. 7. 1., pp. 265–266.
112
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 2. 7. 2., pp. 266.
113
Decretales Gregorii IX: X. 2. 7. 3., pp. 266.
The Oath in the Ancient and Medieval Culture… 39

course. The ancient and medieval perjurer was threatened with severe punishment
– such a person could not find peace even after death. In both periods keeping
oaths was the measure of one’s piety. The solemn commitment belonged to the
realm of the sacred, as it was a part of a religious ritual. Also, the basic gestures
which accompanied the promise were of ancient origins – a hand raised to the sky
and touching sacred objects.
For the ancient people the “profession of faith” was closely connected with
the cult, hence an oath taken by a Greek or a Roman required richer framing. Zeus
(Jupiter) did not use to look into the hearts of mortals, but rather relied on what he
could see. It is no wonder then, that along with the disappearance of the ancient
civilizations, the ritual animals with slit throats, their entrails held in hands, throw‑
ing stones and solids into the sea – also disappeared. Similarly, calling the Sun,
the earth, rivers, and other elements of the cosmos to witness, remained only in
rudimentary form of the pagan deities hidden in the shapes of nature.
To sum up, although the ancient world itself had ceased to exist, the man
of the Middle Ages took the oath of an ancient origin. Since the ancient period the
oath has been a language phenomenon which is based on the power of the spoken
word.