Oathtaking in Themiclesia
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 make known".
On vessels of investiture, newly-created 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 can never be known precisely, it appears that early Themiclesian oaths were only used to restore broken allegiances, rather than establishing one. This is harmonious with the idea that allegiance is created via investituture, rather than an explicit oath. Some have also argued that vessels recording oaths typically are without 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 at some variance, such oaths always 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.
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 of the Colonial Army. This would be congruous with the idea that Themiclesians only take oaths to suppress doubt, and it also suggests that Navy and Colonial Army had their doubts about each other. A different analysis provides that Columbian-born marines may not be as juridically-inclined as Themiclesian ones, so it was necessary to confirm that they were aware of the laws that governed their operation; however, this should apply more to officers rather than ordinary men.
Contemporaneously, Themiclesians were not required to take oaths of any kind to join the militia. This is interpreted to mean that militia service is believed to be natural and normal to Themiclesian men, so there is no suspicion to address by means of an oath. Conversely, if someone desired to leave the militia permanently, they were required to take an oath certifying that they had a valid reason to do so, after 1847. Previous to this, the reason had to be reported and investigated by the government; the imposition of an oath then is understood, in Parliament, to mean quite the reverse of what it did previously—that the oathtaker is a trusted person, rather than an untrusted one. On the other hand, since the oath had to be taken in a public place, the oathtaker is compelled to stake his reputation in the community on the truthfulness of his statements. This conforms to the Liberal idea that the government should not be the judge of individuals, but his community.