The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1884-09-05
OATES AND THEIR MEANING.
Animation Upheld by the History n
Character of Swearing.

Attenuation Upheld by the History n
Character of Swearing.
The new volume of the Encyclopedias
| Britannica, just published, contains a
remarkably interesting article on the
subject of "Oaths," which is particular
ly seasonable at the present moment IN
connection with Bradlaugh discussion.
and the information contained in which,
from a historical point Of view, ought to
| strengthen the position of Mr.. Glad
stone and the Liberal party in their de-
| sire to carry an Affirmation bill. The
author, DR.. E. B. Tylor, makes 1t
abundantly evident that the oath orig
inaily had no connection whatever with
sacred matters. 1t is simply . relic OF
barbarism, san asseveration or promise
made under nonhuman penalty or n
ton" The idea of its having been at
the first an appeal to the Divine Being
is quite a mistake. The invocation OF
the Diety to punish was learned by the
savage tribes from their civilized neigh
bors. An example Of the curse
oath" is seen among the Nag
as of Assam, where two
men lay hold of a dog or fowl by head
OF feet, the animal being then chopped
in two by a single blow as emblematie
of the fate which is expected to befall
the periurer. Sometimes the person
taking the oath would hold in his hand
a spearhead or a tigers tooth, by which
act he virtuously said. eff / do not
faithfully perform this, my promise.
may 1 fall by these" Another stage in
the history of all oaths wa reached
when the swearer called upon some
fierce beast to punish him if he lied, be-
lieving that somehow it knew what he
said, and had power to interfere in hui
man affairs. Between the Russians and
the wild Ostyaks of Siberia. for ex-
ample, the head of a bear wa brought
into court, and the Ostyak, making a
gesture to initiate eating, called upon
the bear to devour him if he did not
speak the truth. In the earlier stages
Of natural or rather nature religion, nat
ural objects were invoked, being looked
upon as animate and personal. Thus.
the old Romans swore by the Styx or
the Tiber, the Hindoo by the Ganges,
while in New Guinea oaths are still tax
ell by On appeal to the sun, the mount
aims, or weapons of war. The Romans
had another custom, in the form of kill
ing a hog by the sacred flint, with the
invocation Of Jupiter so to smite the
people who did not keep their oath.
DR.. Taylor has no hesitation in saying
that the modern forms of adjuration
can all be traced back in some way or
other to these barbaric practices, while
hedwells with emphasis upon the fact
that among Christian nations there has
been much difference of opinion upon
the taking of oaths. st. Crhysostom
and most Of the Understanding
their teaching on the words of the
Divine Author of Christianity-violent-
ly ~denouncing the practice as 80 snare
of Satan.S The Christian custom of
taking the oath upon a copy of the
Gospels seems to have been derived from
the late jewish practice, in which the
oath was taken, holding in the hand the
scroll of the law, or the phylacteries, this
ceremony itself being possibly adapted
from the Roman custom. The practice OF
kissing the book appears first in
the Middle Ages, at the time when
it became customary to touch
the relics of the saints upon the altar,
the cross, or a bishops crozier. Such
an oath, where a sacred object was
touched, was called a Corporal or
bodily oath, as distinguished from a
merely spoken or written oath. The
English word to signify this sacred
object was "halidome," and this "hali-
dome" is for Christians the New
Testament. for Jews the old Testa-
ment, for Mohammedans the Koran.
and for Hindoos tic Vedas. DIR. Tylor
further reminds us that the official and
judicial oaths in England were at one
time very numerous, but that they have
been greatly reduced by modern legis-
%lation, and that the concluding words
of the oath, $50 help me God" ahave
not for ages had any precise signifca-
ton" On the general subject he con-
tends that there is a growing feeling
that only the ignorant and superstitious
are bound by an oath; that it increases
temptations to perjury, and encourages
the inference that a man need not
speak the truth unless he is upon his
oath. The whole article is one of much
ability and value, and deserves to be
carefully read, especially in
ton with the present miserble Brad
laugh conflict, which is undoubtedly
n Of prejudice rather than principle,
and which ought to have been settled
long ago on the lines laid down by the
Prime Minister in one of the noblest
speeches he ever made-a permanent
contribution to the literature Of civil
and religious liberty, Liverpool Mer-
curry.