OBLIGATIONS
AND OATHS
by Bro. H. R. Partlow
The Builder -
February 1921
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. back to top | 
