OBLIGATIONS AND OATHS

THE BUILDER FEBRUARY 1921

BY BRO. H.R. PARTLOW, ARKANSAS

THE MASONIC obligation has always been to the writer a subject of
considerable interest, especially on account of the various
positions assumed by the obliger at the time of taking the
obligation, and the formalities incident to it which, in my
opinion, bespeak for the obligation a greater antiquity than
usually accorded it by historians and writers.

Even a cursory view of the subject of entering into a contractual
relation from ancient times shows that the obligations assumed to
be binding were entered into in accordance to the ceremonial form
of that age, and if entered into in that way were considered by the
ancients inviolate.  History abounds with many instances evidencing
this, but for numerous cases we have only to go into the field of
religious and legal literature.  Biblical and judicial records are
the deposits left by the receding waters of time and an examination
of the laws and customs of these remote ages shows a general
unfolding and development of civilization. True it is that the data
found are not separately and clearly set forth, but may be compared
to the residue of the seashore, scattered and wholly without order,
some buried in sand and foreign matter, while others are entirely
concealed except to the keen vision of the delving student who by
patience and skill will exhume them, thereby revealing them to the
superficial observer.

The writer is fully aware that the average Mason has but little
interest in such matters, but a close study of the customs of the
ancients will shed much light upon certain customs now used in our
ritual or floor work in conferring degrees.  If by any means we can
determine the inception of these early formalities, the basal ideas
leading up to them, and the possible psychological functioning
which produced them they will, in my opinion, be invaluable. These
rudimentary ideas are to the Masonic student what the primary
crusts of the earth are to the geologist.  They contain all the
forms which society has subsequently exhibited.

In the matter of ascertaining the fountain head of the jural
conception of an oath, obligation, or contract, one may become lost
in the impenetrable night of antiquity.  Mr. Holmes, in his
admirable work on Common Law, says: "To explain how mankind first
learned to promise, we must go to metaphysics and find out how it
came to frame a future tense." Law, like religion, is co-eval with
intelligence and so soon as man was capable of continuity of
thought, so soon as he found intelligible speech, he questioned
himself concerning his relationship to other sentient beings. 
Therefore, by way of a premise, it may be said that whenever and
wherever we have found man we find exhibition of certain
characteristics which are common to other peoples in the same stage
of development.
The force and effect of an oath or obligation in ancient days was
much greater than it is today, for the reason that the Higher Power
was presumed to be present and to participate in the transaction as
a third party.  This was especially so in making of covenants which
were accompanied by a sacrifice and other solemn formalities in
addition to the oath calling upon the ever present Deity to
witness.

In the procedure of entering into obligations or of taking oaths
one is impressed first with the universal use of the light hand. It
is a singular coincidence that so many people are right handed, and
we shall now consider the use of the right hand in entering into
various obligations and draw some conclusions regarding its almost
universal use.
 
The right hand has been held forever sacred.  The origin of such
belief is a profound mystery.  Much importance was attached to it
in worship as well as in entering into various contractual
relations.

A study of the formal contract in early English law rewards the
student for the pains of his investigation; and for the purpose of
giving to the reader the benefit of this we quote at some length
from Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law:

"In many countries of Western Europe and in this part of the world
also, we find the mutual grasp of the hand as a form which binds a
bargain.  It is possible to regard this as a relic of a more
elaborate ceremony by which some material was passed from hand to
hand; but the mutuality of the hand grip seems to make against this
explanation.  We think it more likely that the promisor proffered
his name of himself and for the purpose of devoting himself to the
god or goddess, if he broke faith. Expanded in words, the
underlying idea would be of this kind, 'As I here deliver myself to
you by my right hand, so I deliver myself to the wrath of Fides, or
Jupiter acting by the ministry of Fides, if I break faith in this
thing.'

"Whether the Germans have borrowed this symbolic act from the Roman
provincials and have thus taken over a Roman practice along with
Fides, or whether it has an independent root in their own heathen
religion we will not dare to decide.  However, the grasp of the
hand appears among them at an early date as a mode of contracting
solemn, if not legally binding, obligations."

In the Code of Justinian the formality of raising the right hand
was necessary in taking an oath.  Then we find from the two great
sources of law, Roman and English, that more importance is attached
to the right hand than to the left.

Among primitive races, such as the Dacotah, the Winebagoes and
other Western tribes, the right hand as a symbol has been observed
by more than one person.  As a symbol of fidelity and virtue the
right hand is repeatedly referred to in Hebrew lore.
Abraham said to the King of Salem: "I have lifted up my hand unto
the Lord, the most High God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
that I will not take anything that is thine." The expression,
"lifted up my hand unto the Lord," doubtless proves the custom of
the ancient Hebrews in placing the right hand upon the object of
veneration in entering into a contract or binding obligations, and
if such object could not be touched, the right hand was extended
toward the thing of reverence with hand open and fingers extended. 
The right hand of fellowship is spoken of by St. Paul in
Gallatioans (Gallatian 2, chap. 9).  In Psalms, 94th chapter, the
right hand is spoken of as "the right hand of falsehood."

The manner of using the right hand is a symbol of fidelity, imposed
in primitive times the loss of that member in cases of breaches of
faith.  Pollack and Maitland, in their work on English Law, in
speaking of the German people say, "Germanic law is fond of
characteristic punishment.  It likes to take the tongue of the
false accuser and the perjurer's right hand."

Fort in his Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, says:

"Oaths were also attested by water, fountains and streams, by
rocks, cliffs and stones - the latter sometimes white, but the most
sacred and binding obligations were made upon a blue stone altar. 
Ancient Norsemen swore upon Thor's hammer. It was no unusual thing
for a person to formerly attest an oath by the beard, hair, and
eyes, or with the hand upon vestments.  A judicial obligation was
administered by touching the judge's staff of office, and by some
reason warriors swore by the sword; also, other people, in less
exciting spheres of domestic life, used household furniture.  For
examples travellers grasped the wagon wheel, and horsemen their
stirrups; sailors rested the hand upon the ship's railing. 
Operative Masons, or stonecutters of the Middle Ages perpetuated
the Scandinavian custom of swearing upon common utensils and used
their tools in the solemn formality of an obligation - a usage
adhered to by the modern craft.

"The right hand was considered indispensable in medieval oaths, to
seize or to touch the consecrated objects.  Frequently the hand was
upraised in order to bring it in contact with the material object
sworn by, and at the same time kneeling, divested of hat and
weapon, was an essential element in the ceremony of assuming an
oath."

Why was it necessary to touch or to be in contact with some sacred
object? This is a pertinent question. The possible explanation may
be found in the doctrine of deodands in ancient English Common Law. 
This doctrine generally recognized that in case of an injury
inflicted by an inanimate object, such as a wagon wheel, tree or
other object of similar kind, a portion of the punishment or damage
was to award the injured with the object, the cause of the injury. 
Man from the remotest times has attributed life, spirit or being to
inanimate objects, therefore, swearing upon these inanimate objects
is doubtless for no other purpose than to call upon some object to
be a witness to this obligation.  From the fact that man has
attributed life to inanimate objects, creating and vesting them
with certain characteristics common to mankind, naturally thought
about the necessity of giving them sex.  Hence it is probable that
this is the explanation why in most languages we find masculine and
feminine gender indiscriminately applied to inanimate objects.  The
explanation is to be found in the doctrine of animism and not in
poetic license as is often given by grammarians.

The frequent use of the right hand - and one can cite instance
after instance of its use of entering into obligations, such as in
marriage contracts, uplifted right hand in the taking of an oath -
naturally arouses one's enthusiasm to investigate the probable
cause. Brother Mackey cites instance after instance of its use in
worship, such as keeping the right side to the altar in going
around the altar.  Sir Walter Scott gives an instance in his novel,
The Pirate, of the young people who assembled in far off Norseland
and joined right hands through a circular aperture at the base of
an upright rock and plighted their faiths to the god Odin.  G.
Stanley Hall makes some interesting remarks when he says:

"There are many facts which seem to suggest that in adolescence the
right hand precedes the left, and is not usually quite overtaken,
so that the predominance is greater after puberty.  If this be so
the relation of the two hands in man is somewhat analogous to the
relation between the male and female body in muscular development."

Scientists say the grip of the right hand exceeds in strength by
one-sixth to one-eighth that of the left hand.  Smedley has
observed that there is an analogy between unidexterity and the
development of the voice.

Here let us pause and ask two questions: First, Are we right-handed
because of the long continued use of the right hand in worship and
in assuming obligations thereby creating a physiological condition
or anatomical condition as a result of constant exercise or
precedence of the right hand? Second, Is the preference given to
the right hand due to the disparity in development between the two
hands as is pointed out by the scientist in the preceding
paragraphs?

The delivery of possession of a piece of land was performed, says
Digby, in the following manner:

"Speaking generally it must be the delivery of something, such as
a clod, earth or twig on the land in the name of whole.  Great
importance was attached to the notoriety of the transaction. That
all the neighbours might know that A was tenant to B from the fact
that open livery of seisen had been made to him.  This would enable
him to assert his rights in case of disputes to the title of
lands."

Another instance may be cited from Littleton Coke's translation:

"When a freeholder does fealty to his lord he shall hold his right
hand on a book and shall say this: 'Know ye this, my lord, that I
shall be faithful and true unto you and faith to you shall bear for
the lands which I claim to hold of you and that I shall lawfully do
to you the custom and service while I ought to do, at the terms
assigned, so help me God and his Saints.  And he shall kiss the
book."

In further substantiation of formalities in assuming obligations we
wish here to refer to some peculiar marriage customs.  One of the
most peculiar of these customs was known as "Smock-marriages" or
"Marriage in Shift." Under the common law the husband became at
marriage liable for the antenuptial debts of his wife as well as
the successor to her property rights.  One counteracted the other. 
Now the theory that the husband could escape the liability of the
antenuptial debts of his wife possibly created or brought about
smock-marriages.

A smock-marriage was one where the debtor bride came to the wedding
dressed in a smock or shift, which was a public declaration to her
creditors that she took no property to her husband as a basis of
charging him with her debts.  A number of instances are reported in
the New England States where the bride was secluded in a closet and
joined right hands, through an aperture of the door with the
bridegroom until the ceremony was said, and later appeared well
dressed.  Alice Morse Earle, in her Customs of Old New England,
refers frequently to this unique custom.

In ancient days trial by battle was attended by the usual formality
of joining right hands before the trial of strength, a custom still
preserved in the prize fight. 

Numerous examples might be cited from the Bible but this is not
deemed necessary here as it would simply expand this article and
add nothing to its value or proof.

The Prince of Wales in taking his coronation oath lays his right
hand upon the Bible, for it is the object of veneration or
sacredness.

The formality of removing the shoes is one of the oldest customs
and doubtless had its origin among the people of the Far East,
especially the Hebrews.  We find Moses upon his approach to the
burning bush removed his shoes for the reason that the ground on
which he stood was sacred. It is a custom of the people of the East
upon approaching a sacred place to remove the shoes or to uncover
the feet, but among the Western people the head is uncovered.  The
fact of discalceation proves beyond doubt that the person taking
the oath regards the Deity as present and participating as a third
party to the ceremony.  Among the Jewish people it was considered
a sign of renunciation of dominion or authority to remove the
shoes.

Under the Mosaic law the brother of a childless man was bound to
marry his widow and until he renounced his right, she could not
marry another.  If refused the woman was obliged to loose his shoes
from off his feet and spit before his face as an assertion of
complete her complete independence.

Edward J. White in his Legal Antiquities says:

"That this custom was later used by the early Christians would seem
to be confirmed by the story connected with the proposal of the
Emperor Vladimir to the daughter of Raguald, for when asked if she
would not marry the Emperor she replied: 'I will not take off my
shoes to the son of a slave."'

In the early Saxon days when marriage was completed the father of
the bride took off her shoes and handed them to the bridegroom.
Wood's Wedding Day in All Ages says that Martin Luther, the great
reformer, used the shoe in his ceremony.

Bending the knee has in all ages of the world's history been
considered as an act of humility and reverence. Pliny, the Roman
naturalist, observes that a certain degree of religious reverence
is attributed to the knee of man.  Solomon prayed upon bended knee
at the consecration of the temple.

These customs show beyond doubt that in taking the obligation the
candidate is assumed to be in the presence of the Deity and that
his obligation is entered into with that ever present Being.

The last point we desire to make is that an obligation once assumed
was by ancient peoples considered inviolable, and could not be set
aside or held for naught.  One reason for this was because every
act of the promisor contemplated the presence of the Deity and
according to the customs of that age due preparations had been made
looking to the entering into of the obligations.

It would be a great blessing in this modern age if more of the
initiates in entering into the obligation could or would consider
it more as the ancients did, a solemn and binding obligation, - one
taken in the presence of Him who can search the inner recesses of
the heart and knows our purposes and designs.  If that were true we
would have better Masons.

It is a matter of regret to every man practising law how easily men
extend their right hand toward their Creator and perjure
themselves.  This is done because many of them regard an oath as an
empty string of words with no binding effect whatsoever.  Let us as
Masons make more of our obligations and try to impress upon the
initiate the fact that a broken pledge with the brethren is
attended with serious consequences and is looked upon with
displeasure by Him who takes notice of the falling of the sparrow.

