The name is absent

process of oathing to practices bound by the government, overlooking wider
social and cultural applications of oathing.

Helen Silving traces the evolution of the judicial oath in European states
and in the United States.⁷ Silving argues that current judicial oaths evolved from
the pre-religious and pre-animistic period in which oaths were essentially vows
made by individuals to bring about any desired result. These oaths were self-
cursing because the individual believed that not keeping the vow would result in
a curse. Therefore, the oath impacted the person making the vow and the
person, thing, or situation the person was seeking to manipulate.

As divine beings began to take prominence, the power of the person
taking the vow began to diminish, while deities were believed to take a larger role
as conduits of the individual’s power. However, the oath was still considered a
self-curse. The deity was the source of punishment if the oath was unfulfilled by
the person making it. The theme would carry forth into the 20^th century as oaths
were administered in courts of law. In taking the oath, the testifier in the case
accepted that divine punishment was the result of providing false testimony.

Over time, however, the oath itself became the source of power rather
than the “truth.” The accused could take one of two oaths - that he∕she was
guilty of the charge or that he∕she was not. The accused would be charged or
exonerated according to the oath taken. In Germanic and English societies, the
oathing individual was allowed to produce as many “oath helpers” as allowed by
the court. These were not necessarily people who witnessed the supposed

⁷ Silving, “The Oath: I,” 1329-1390.

62

<<   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   >>

More intriguing information