Oathtaking in Themiclesia: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "'''Oathtaking in Themiclesia''' has a long and varied history. There have been two forms of thinking as to the origins of oaths (誓, ''djêdh''). One states that they may...") |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Oathtaking in Themiclesia''' has a long and varied history. | '''Oathtaking in Themiclesia''' has a long and varied history. | ||
There have been two forms of thinking as to the origins of oaths (誓, ''djêdh''). One states that they may have originated as a contract with supernatural forces to impose constraints, when other forms of constraints are not useful or available, since early Themiclesians often consulted oracles before taking oaths. Oathtakers were typically members of the elite and not commoners. Since the elite were not subject to ordinary laws and constraints, their good behaviour could only be ascertained invoking the supernatural. The other theory believes that ''djêdh'' is a ''-s'' derivative of ''djêt'' "to break", from the practice of writing a contract and then breaking it into two halves, so that it may be authenticated and checked for fulfilment. Neither theory has achieved universal acceptance. Fairly recently, a third theory has asserted that ''djêdh'' may be cognated with ''ntrjêt'' (哲) via prefix ''n-'', which would have the meaning "to | ==History== | ||
===Antiquity=== | |||
There have been two forms of thinking as to the origins of oaths (誓, ''djêdh''). One states that they may have originated as a contract with supernatural forces to impose constraints, when other forms of constraints are not useful or available, since early Themiclesians often consulted oracles before taking oaths. Oathtakers were typically members of the elite and not commoners. Since the elite were not subject to ordinary laws and constraints, their good behaviour could only be ascertained invoking the supernatural. The other theory believes that ''djêdh'' is a ''-s'' derivative of ''djêt'' "to break", from the practice of writing a contract and then breaking it into two halves, so that it may be authenticated and checked for fulfilment. Neither theory has achieved universal acceptance. Fairly recently, a third theory has asserted that ''djêdh'' may be cognated with ''ntrjêt'' (哲) via prefix ''n-'', which would have the meaning "to announce, declare". | |||
On [[Vessel of investiture|vessels of investiture]], | On [[Vessel of investiture|vessels of investiture]], Themiclesian [[Themiclesian nobility|aristocrats]] often recorded their gratitude towards their liege lords and make declarations as to their future behaviour. Few contain an "oath" explicitly, and those that do typically imply the allegiance is somehow under question. Some scholars therefore propose that ''djêdh'' in the epigraphical context should be translated as "confirmation", rather than "oath". While the circumstances under which such vessels were initially minted are not known, it appears that early oaths were used to restore broken promises or ascertain compliance. This is harmonious with the idea that allegiance is created via an exchange of offerings, rather than oath; this is to have serious legal repercussions afterwards. Some have also argued that vessels recording oaths typically are without the pleasantries that abound on those without oaths, indicating that taking of oaths may not have been a dignified or commemorable thing, and the object recording it may have been held as a proof of the oath taken. | ||
During the dynastic period, the oath is most prominently used in one specific context—preparing for [[State cult of Themiclesia|cultic]] events. Relevant laws declare that civil servants participating in cultic events must take standard oaths to maintain ritualistic purity. Though | During the dynastic period, the oath is most prominently used in one specific context—preparing for [[State cult of Themiclesia|cultic]] events. Relevant laws declare that civil servants participating in cultic events must take standard oaths to maintain ritualistic purity. Though with some variance, such oaths require abstinance from sex, certain foods, and most forms of work and entertainment. It seems from the [[Ran-lang Collection]] non-observance was punished by death, but there are no extant cases thereof. Later codices have apparently repealed such an offence, which was levied on ritualistic impurity, not on the breaking of the oath. | ||
===Medieval period=== | |||
During the medieval era (c. 256 to 1410) the laws of oathtaking were further elaborated for many reasons. One such was the need to support litigation, which from the 300s required the party bringing the suit to make oath before the court that the accusations are truthful. The plaintiff usually swore on a given amount of land, goods, or money. After the case is investigated and decided, the losing party must make oath to avoid vengeance, declaring that he would make good the plaintiff's losses or suffer more penalties. Such oaths are specifically called judicial oaths (灋誓, ''pjabh-djêdh''), and if any part of the oath were perjurious, the party taking it forfeited the bond and any true claims remaining. That the oath be valid, it must be taken publicly, freely, and the stakes involved, declared. | |||
The oathtaking system has attracted recent scholarship. Some historians have argued that, when royal magistrates were not as powerful as they later would be, this system ensured that the plaintiff's claim had adequate support within the community. "In a sense, the community is invited to judge the plaintiff's claim; only when it has persuaded the community would royal power be mobilized," according to A. Gro. In a more sinister interpretation forwarded by S. Giw, the magisterial power would not become involved if the claim, valid or not, failed to achieve the community's support. After the trial has established that the defendant has legitimate grounds to seek vengeance; to avoid it, the defendant assures compensation and good conduct in the future. Judicial oaths became the main and eventually only legally-binding oaths in Themiclesia. | |||
===Modern period=== | |||
In 1732, four regiments of the Columbian Colonial Army were ordered to submit to the [[Themiclesian Navy|Admiralty]] as marines. The crew, however, turned them away for reasons not clear. Since these four regiments were raised in settlements south of Camia, which had declared [[Camian Kingdom|independence]] in 1701, it is possible that the crew questioned their allegiance. In a desperate attempt to persuade the crew to admit them, the admirals caused the same to make a public oath that they would obey all laws that apply to marines and defend the crew with their lives. Themiclesian-born marines were ''not'' required to take the same oath until 1795, nor are Columbian- or Norfeld-born soldiers in the Colonial Army. Soldiers in other units were generally not required to make oath. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Latest revision as of 06:23, 13 May 2021
Oathtaking in Themiclesia has a long and varied history.
History
Antiquity
There have been two forms of thinking as to the origins of oaths (誓, djêdh). One states that they may have originated as a contract with supernatural forces to impose constraints, when other forms of constraints are not useful or available, since early Themiclesians often consulted oracles before taking oaths. Oathtakers were typically members of the elite and not commoners. Since the elite were not subject to ordinary laws and constraints, their good behaviour could only be ascertained invoking the supernatural. The other theory believes that djêdh is a -s derivative of djêt "to break", from the practice of writing a contract and then breaking it into two halves, so that it may be authenticated and checked for fulfilment. Neither theory has achieved universal acceptance. Fairly recently, a third theory has asserted that djêdh may be cognated with ntrjêt (哲) via prefix n-, which would have the meaning "to announce, declare".
On vessels of investiture, Themiclesian aristocrats often recorded their gratitude towards their liege lords and make declarations as to their future behaviour. Few contain an "oath" explicitly, and those that do typically imply the allegiance is somehow under question. Some scholars therefore propose that djêdh in the epigraphical context should be translated as "confirmation", rather than "oath". While the circumstances under which such vessels were initially minted are not known, it appears that early oaths were used to restore broken promises or ascertain compliance. This is harmonious with the idea that allegiance is created via an exchange of offerings, rather than oath; this is to have serious legal repercussions afterwards. Some have also argued that vessels recording oaths typically are without the pleasantries that abound on those without oaths, indicating that taking of oaths may not have been a dignified or commemorable thing, and the object recording it may have been held as a proof of the oath taken.
During the dynastic period, the oath is most prominently used in one specific context—preparing for cultic events. Relevant laws declare that civil servants participating in cultic events must take standard oaths to maintain ritualistic purity. Though with some variance, such oaths require abstinance from sex, certain foods, and most forms of work and entertainment. It seems from the Ran-lang Collection non-observance was punished by death, but there are no extant cases thereof. Later codices have apparently repealed such an offence, which was levied on ritualistic impurity, not on the breaking of the oath.
Medieval period
During the medieval era (c. 256 to 1410) the laws of oathtaking were further elaborated for many reasons. One such was the need to support litigation, which from the 300s required the party bringing the suit to make oath before the court that the accusations are truthful. The plaintiff usually swore on a given amount of land, goods, or money. After the case is investigated and decided, the losing party must make oath to avoid vengeance, declaring that he would make good the plaintiff's losses or suffer more penalties. Such oaths are specifically called judicial oaths (灋誓, pjabh-djêdh), and if any part of the oath were perjurious, the party taking it forfeited the bond and any true claims remaining. That the oath be valid, it must be taken publicly, freely, and the stakes involved, declared.
The oathtaking system has attracted recent scholarship. Some historians have argued that, when royal magistrates were not as powerful as they later would be, this system ensured that the plaintiff's claim had adequate support within the community. "In a sense, the community is invited to judge the plaintiff's claim; only when it has persuaded the community would royal power be mobilized," according to A. Gro. In a more sinister interpretation forwarded by S. Giw, the magisterial power would not become involved if the claim, valid or not, failed to achieve the community's support. After the trial has established that the defendant has legitimate grounds to seek vengeance; to avoid it, the defendant assures compensation and good conduct in the future. Judicial oaths became the main and eventually only legally-binding oaths in Themiclesia.
Modern period
In 1732, four regiments of the Columbian Colonial Army were ordered to submit to the Admiralty as marines. The crew, however, turned them away for reasons not clear. Since these four regiments were raised in settlements south of Camia, which had declared independence in 1701, it is possible that the crew questioned their allegiance. In a desperate attempt to persuade the crew to admit them, the admirals caused the same to make a public oath that they would obey all laws that apply to marines and defend the crew with their lives. Themiclesian-born marines were not required to take the same oath until 1795, nor are Columbian- or Norfeld-born soldiers in the Colonial Army. Soldiers in other units were generally not required to make oath.