Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

662 JUSJURANDUM. JUSJURANDUM.
and allow it to be carried into effect, as was -the name of his country, and struck the victim with a
case with the lex agraria of Saturninus. The flint-stone, calling on Jupiter to destroy the Roman
censor Q. Metellus, who refused to swear, was sent nation in like manner, as he (the pater patratus)
into exile. (Appian, B. C. i. 29; Cic. pro Sext. 47; destroyed the animal, if the people should violate
Plut. Mar. 29.) During the time of the empire the oath. The chiefs or priests of the other nation
all magistrates on entering their office were obliged then swore in a similar manner by their own gods.
to pledge themselves by an oath that they would The ceremony was sometimes different, inasmuch
observe the acta Caesarum ( iurare in acta Cae- as the fetialis cast away the stone from his hands,
sarum, Suet. Tiber. 67; Tacit. Aennal. i. 72, xiii. saying, Si sciens fallo, tzlnm me Diespiter salva )urbe
26, xvi. 22; Dion Cass. xlvii. p. 384, &c.), and arceque bonis ejicieat, uti ego dune lapidem. (Fest.
the senators had to do the same regularly every s. v. Lapideim.) Owing to the prominent part
year on the first of January. (Dion Cass. lviii. which the stone (lapis silex) played in this act,
p. 724; compare Lipsius, Excuas. A. ad Tacit. Jupiter himself was called Jupiter Lapis (Polyb.
Annal. xvi. 22.) iii. 25), and hence it was in aftertimes not
All Roman soldiers after they were enlisted for uncommon among the Romans in ordinary cona campaign, had to take the military oath (sacra- versation to swear by Jupiter Lapis. (Gellius, i.
menturn), which was administered in the following 21; Cic. ad Farc. vii. 1, 12; Plut. Suzlla, 10.)
manner:- Each tribunus militum assembled his In swearing to a treaty with a foreign nation, a
regiment, and picked out one of the men to whom victim (a pig or a lamb) was in the early times alhe put the oath, that he would obey the corm- ways sacrificed by the fetialis (whence the expresmeands of his generals and execute them punctually. sionsjbedas icere, bpmcma Teu/resv), and the priest
The other men then came forward one after an- while pronouncing the oath probably touched the
other and repeated the same oath, saying that they victim or the altar. (Virg. Aen. xii. 201, &c.;
would do: like the first (idenz in me, Polyb. vi. Liv. xxi. 45; compare FETIALES.) This mode of
21; Fest. s. v. Praejzorationes). Livy (xxii. 38) swearing to a treaty through the sacred person of
says that until the year 216 B. C. the military a fetialis, was observed for a long time, and after
oath was only sacramentum, i. e. the soldiers the second Punic war the fetiales even travelled to
took it voluntarily, and promised (with impreca- Africa to perform the ancient ceremonies. (Liv.
tions) that they would not desert from the army, xxx. 43.) The jus fetiale, however, fell into disand not leave the ranks except to fight against use as the Romans extended their conquests; and
the enemy or to save a Roman citizen. But in as in most cases of treaties with foreign nations, the
the year 216 B. C. the soldiers were compelled by Romans were not the party that chose to promise
the tribunes to take the oath, which the tribunes anything on oath, we hear no more of oaths on
put to them, that they would meet at the command their part; but the foreign nation or conquered
of the consuls and not leave the standards without party was sometimes obliged to promise with a sotheir orders, so that in this case the military oath lemn oath (sacramzentum) to observe the conditions
became a jusjurandum. But Livy here forgets that prescribed by the Romans, and documents recordlong before that time he has represented (iii. 20) ing such promises were kept in the capitol. (Liv.
the soldiers taking the same jusjurandum. A per- xxvi. 24.) But in cases where the Romans had
fect formula of a military oath is preserved in Gel- reason to mistrust, they demanded hostages as
lius (xvi. 4; compare Dionys. vi. 23.) being a better security than an oath, and this was
It may here be remarked that any oath might the practice which in later times they adopted
be taken in two ways: the person who took it, most generally. At first the Romans were very
either framed it himself, or it was put to him in scrupulous in observing their oaths in contracts or
a set form, and in this case he was said in verbas treaties with foreigners, and even with enemies
jerare, orjzlrare verbis conceptis. Polybius (vi. 33) but attempts were soon made by individuals to
speaks of a second oath which was put to all who interpret an oath sophistically and explain away
served in the army, whether freemen or slaves, as its binding character (Gellius, vii. 18; Liv. iii.
soon as the castrametatio had taken place, anld by 20, xxii. 61; Cic. de Off. iii. 27, &c.), and from
which all promised that they would steal nlothing the third Punic war to the end of the republic,
from the camp, and that they would take to the perjury was common among the Romans in their
tribunes whatever they might happen to find. The dealings with foreigners as well as among themmilitary oath was, according to Dionysius (xi. selves.
43), the most sacred of all, and the law allowed III. Oat7Ls or various modes of swearing in coma general to put to death without a formal trial any mzon life. The practice of swearing or calling
soldier who ventured to act contrary to his oath. upon some god or gods as witnesses to the truth
It was taken upon the signa, which were them- of assertions made in common life or in ordinary
selves considered sacred. In the time of the em- conversations, was as common among the Romans
pire a clause was added to the military oath, in as among the Greeks. The various forms used in
which the soldiers declared that they would con- swearing may be divided into three classes: —
sider the safety of the emperor more important than 1. Simple invocations of one or more gods, as
anything else, and that they loved neither them- Ihercle or Mehercle, that is, ita me Hercules juvet,
selves nor their children more than their sovereign. amet, or servet (Fest. s. v. Mecastor); Pol, PeTpol
(Arrian, Epict. iii. 14; Suet. Calig. 15; Amluian. or Aedepol, that is, per Pollucem; per Jovenm LaMarc. xxi. 5.) On the military oath in general, pideme or simply per Jovere; per superos; per deos
compare Brissonius, De Formzal. iv. c. 1-5. imnmortales; mnedizs fidius, that is, ita me Dius
II. Oaths taken in transactions withforeign na- (Alos) filius juvet (Fest. s. v.; Varro, de Ling.
tlions in tle name of tlIe republic. The most ancient Lat. iv. p. 20, Bip.); ita me dens amet, or dii amsent.: form of an oath of this kind is recorded by Livy Sometimes also two or a great number of gods
(i. 24), in a treaty between the Romans and Albans. were invoked by their names. (Plaut. Baccidd. iv.
The pater patratus pronounced the oath in the 8, 51; Terent, Andr, iii, 2. 25.) The genii of