To Do

New text

References

Sources

Ancient

Herodotus

6.86C [= 6.86γ]

So the Milesians went away in sorrow, as men robbed of their possessions; but Glaucus journeyed to Delphi to question the oracle. When he asked the oracle whether he should seize the money under oath, the Pythian priestess threatened him in these verses:

[2] “Glaucus son of Epicydes, it is more profitable now

To prevail by your oath and seize the money.

Swear, for death awaits even the man who swears true.

But Oath has a son, nameless; he is without hands

Or feet, but he pursues swiftly, until he catches

And destroys all the family and the entire house.

The line of a man who swears true is better later on."

When Glaucus heard this, he entreated the god to pardon him for what he had said. The priestess answered that to tempt the god and to do the deed had the same effect.

Hesiod

Theogony

226–232 [Most]

And loathsome Strife bore painful Toil and Forgetfulness and Hunger and tearful Pains, and Combats and Battles and Murders and Slaughters, and Strifes and Lies and Tales and Disputes, and Lawlessness and Recklessness, much like one another, and Oath [Ὅρκόν], who indeed brings most woe upon human beings on the earth, whenever someone willfully swears a false oath.

Works and Days

213–224

As for you, Perses, give heed to Justice [Dike] and do not foster Outrageousness [Hybris]. For Outrageousness is evil in a worthless mortal; and even a fine man cannot bear her easily, but encounters calamities and then is weighed down under her. The better road is the one toward what is just, passing her by on the other side. Justice wins out over Outrageousness when she arrives at the end; but the fool only knows this after he has suffered. For at once Oath [Horkos] starts to run along beside crooked judgments, and there is a clamor when Justice is dragged where men, gift-eaters, carry her off and pronounce verdicts with crooked judgments; but she stays, weeping, with the city and the people’s abodes, clad in invisibility, bearing evil to the human beings who drive her out and do not deal straight.

282–285

But whoever willfully swears a false oath, telling a lie in his testimony, he himself is incurably hurt at the same time as he harms Justice [Dike], and in after times his family is left more obscure; whereas the family of the man who keeps his oath is better in after times.

802–804

Avoid the fifth days, since they are difficult and dread: for they say that it was on the fifth that the Erinyes attended upon Oath as it was born—Oath, which Strife bore as a woe to those who break their oath.

Hyginus

Fabulae

pr.3.1–2

[3.1] Ex Aethere et Terra Dolor Dolus Ira Luctus Men-

[3.2] dacium Iusiurandum Vltio Intemperantia Altercatio Obliuio Socor-

Smith and Trzaskoma, p. 95

[3.1] From Ether and Earth came Pain, Deception, Anger, Mourning, Lying, Oath ...

[[Pausanias (geographer)|Pausanias]

5.24.9

[9] But the Zeus in the Council Chamber is of all the images of Zeus the one most likely to strike terror into the hearts of sinners. He is surnamed Oath-god [Ὅρκιός], and in each hand he holds a thunderbolt. Beside this image it is the custom for athletes, their fathers and their brothers, as well as their trainers, to swear an oath upon slices of boar's flesh that in nothing will they sin against the Olympic games. ...

5.24.11

... Before the feet of the Oath-god [Ὁρκίου] is a bronze plate, with elegiac verses inscribed upon it, the object of which is to strike fear into those who forswear themselves.

Pindar

Nemean

11.24

ναὶ μὰ γὰρ ὅρκον,

For I swear that,

Sophocles

Oedipus at Colonus

1766–1767

ταῦτ᾿ οὖν ἔκλυεν δαίμων ἡμῶν

χὠ πάντ᾿ ἀίων Διὸς Ὅρκος.

So the god heard me promise this, and the lord of oaths, the son of Zeus, who hears all words.

Modern

Adrados

pp. 275–276

Bayliss

p. 244

But swearing a false oath was considered dangerous, as the oft-discussed case of Glaucus the Spartan makes clear15. According to Herodotus (6.86) the Spartan king Leotychidas claimed that Glaucus was punished by the gods for even thinking about swearing a false oath. When Glaucus asked the oracle at Delphi whether it would acceptable to lie under oath in order to cheat some Mile- sian strangers out of their share of a sum of money that had been left with him on trust he received the following reply:

For now, Glaucus son of Epicydes, you have an immediate profit; to win by oath and steal the money; swear, since death awaits even the man who swears well. But Horkos has a child with no name, nor hands, nor feet, but swift in pursuit, until he has in his grasp all a man’s offspring and household, which he destroys. But the offspring of the man who swears well shall afterwards be better.

Caldwell

p. 40 [= Internet Archive p. 42]

212-232 The remaining children of Night are personifications ... The children of Eris are Hardship [Ponos], Forgetfulness (Lethe), Starvation [Limos], Pains [Algea], Battles [Hysminai], Wars [Machai], Murders [Phonoi], Manslaughters [Androktasiai], Quarrels [Neikea] Lies [Pseudea], Stories [Logoi], Disputes [Amphillogiai], Anarchy [Dysnomia], Ruin [Ate], Oath [Horkos].

Chambry

298

Παρακαταθήκην εἰληφὼς καὶ Ὅρκος.

Παρακαταθήκην τις λαβὼν φίλου ἀποστερεῖν διενοεῖτο. Καὶ δὴ προσκαλουμένου αὐτὸν ἐκείνου ἐπὶ ὅρκον, εὐλαβούμενος εἰς ἀγρὸν ἐπορεύετο. Γενόμενος δὲ κατὰ τὰς πύλας, ὡς ἐθεάσατό τινα χωλὸν ἐξιόντα, ἐπυνθάνετο αὐτοῦ τίς τε εἴη καὶ ποῖ πορεύοιτο. Τοῦ δὲ εἰπόντος αὑτὸν Ὅρκον εἶναι καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς βαδίζειν, ἐκ δευτέρου ἠρώτα διὰ πόσου χρόνου ἐπιφοιτᾶν ταῖς πόλεσι εἴωθεν. Ὁ δὲ ἔφη· Διὰ τεσσαράκοντα ἐτῶν, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ τριάκοντα. Καὶ ὃς οὐδὲν μελλήσας τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ ὄμοσε μὴ εἰληφέναι τὴν παρακαταθήκην. Περιπεσὼν δὲ τῷ Ὅρκῳ, καὶ ἀπαγόμενος ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ κρημνόν, ᾐτιᾶτο αὐτὸν ὡς προειπὼν αὐτῷ διὰ τριάκοντα ἐτῶν ἐπιπορεύεσθαι, οὐδὲ πρὸς μίαν ἡμέραν ἄδειαν δέδωκεν. Ὁ δὲ ὑπολαβὼν ἔφη· Ἀλλ' εὖ ἴσθι ὡς, ὅταν μέλλῃ τις ἀνιᾶσαί με, καὶ αὐθημερὸν ἐπιφοιτᾶν εἴωθα.

Ὁ λόγος δηλοῖ ὅτι ἀδιόριστός ἐστιν ἡ κατὰ τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἐκ θεοῦ τιμωρία.

Gantz

p. 9

in art we find Eris ... Hesiod's [cont.]

p. 10

account goes on to list Eris' own children, born with no father mentioned and virtually all allegorizings: Ponos (Labor), Lethe (Forgetfulness), Limos (Famine), Algea (Pains), Hysminae (Combats), Machai (Battles), Phonoi (Slaughterings), Androktasiai (Slayings of Men), Neikea (Quarrels), Pseudea (Falsehoods), Logoi (Words), Amphillogiai (Unclear Words), Dysnomia (Bad Government), Horkos (Oath), and Ate (Folly) (226–32) Of this list only the last has any identity, [although as a daughter of Zeus with no mother mentioned]

Gibbs

p. 88 [= Gibbs 170]

Fable 170 (Chambry 298 = Perry 239)

The Oath's Punishment

A certain man took a deposit from a friend but intended to keep it for himself. When the depositor then summoned him to swear an oath regarding the deposit, he realized the danger he was in and prepared to leave the city and go to his farm. When he reached the city gates, he saw a lame man who was also on his way out of town. He asked the man who he was and where he was going. The man said that he was the god named Oath and that he was on his way to track down wicked people. The man then asked Oath how often he revisited each city. Oath replied, 'I come back after forty years, or sometimes thirty.' Accordingly, on the very next day the man did not hesitate to swear an oath that he had never received the deposit. But then the man ran into Oath, who dragged him off to the edge of a cliff. The man asked Oath how he could have said that he wasn't coming back for another thirty years when in fact he didn't even grant him a single day's reprieve. Oath explained, 'You also need to know that if somebody intends to provoke me, I am accustomed to come back again the very same day.'

The fable shows that there is no fixed day on which wicked people are punished by the god.

Note: The divine embodiment of the oath, called Horkos in Greek, was represented as being lame, since it often took him a very long time to catch up with oath-breakers and punish them. For another account of why the gods' justice is frequently delayed, see Fable 524.

Hard

p. 31

The children of Eris represent the many harmful and destructive things that arise from discord and strife, namely Toil (Ponos), Oblivion (Lethe), Famine, Sorrows, Fights, Battles, Murders, Manslayings, Quarrels, Lies, Disputes, Lawlessness, Delusion (Ate) and Oath (Horkos).⁵⁹ This is allegory of the most obvious kind for the most part; the last two alone require further comment.

...

HORKOS (Oath) is introduced into the list in connection with perjuries; he personifies the curse that will be activated if a person swears a false oath. Hesiod expresses the matter in allegorical terms in the Works and Days, by stating that the Erinyes (Furies) assisted at the birth of Horkos when Eris brought him to birth to bring trouble to those who perjure themselves ^{63 [Hes. W.D 802-4.]}

Konstantinidou

p. 8

2.1 Horkos and Erinyes: oath as a curse

It is common that personifications of abstract concepts in the archaic and classical Greek period often interact ... specifically, in Hesiod, the personified Horkos is clearly presented as a curse while in Aeschylus’ Eumenides, the personified Arai, Curses, come to prominence in the context of institutional oaths and potential perjury. The unifying factor that defines the personification of both abstractions [cont.]

p. 9

is their association or identification with the divine Erinyes whose relation with all forms of cursing extends to oaths. ...

A good starting point for getting a sense of Greek attitudes to conceiving the oath as a conditional self-curse is to consider the Ηesiodic representation of Horkos. Explaining why “fifth days” should be avoided, Hesiod gives as a reason his birth (Hes. WD 802‒4):

...

Here Martin West identifies the Oath as a conditional self-curse: “an oath is by origin a curse which a man lays upon himself, to take effect if what he declares is false. The god Horkos is the personification of this curse; that is why he is attended by the Erinyes...” ... In their [the Erinyes] most common role, they are invoked to fulfil revenge curses within a family (a role that they famously retain in Greek tragedy).¹⁴ ... (Il. 9.568‒72).

14 ... parental cursing (e.g. Aesch. Sept. 720‒5, 866‒9, 886‒7; Aesch. Cho. 924; Soph. OC 1298‒9), ... children against mothers ... Soph. El. 110‒6; ... Soph. Trach. 807‒12) husbands against wives (Eur. Med. 1389‒90), comrades-in-arms against their generals (Soph. Aj. 835‒44 [839‒42], 1389‒92).

p. 10

(Il. 9.453‒7). Yet, the Erinyes are also the divine agents who fulfil the conditional self-curse of the oath: ... as punishers of perjury (Il. 19.258‒60; cf. Il. 3.279; Alcaeus fr. 129.13‒4).

p. 11

Not limited to archaic times, the utter ruin (exōleia) of those swearing falsely – which denotes not only their own death, but can extend to the destruction of their offspring and, sometimes, even household – is the main manifestation of the explicit form of divine punishment, especially in formal oath-taking in all periods. This feature is played out further in the level of divine personifications The well-known personification of Horkos’ nameless, lame son in the story of the perjurer-to-be Glaucus in Herodotus enacts the same form of punishment against perjurers (Hdt. 6.86; see §10.2). The shift in focus from Horkos to his son in Herodotus seems to suggest an interesting assimilation between the divine oath-enforcers and the punishment that they exact: Horkos and his offspring punish the false swearer and his offspring.

The punishment exacted by Horkos or his son can extend over generations. Time, thus, plays an important role in the application of this form of punish- ment which “entails delay, extended temporality, possibly the substitution of one victim for another” (Gagné 2013, 177). Yet, in spite of the length of time implied by the fact that retribution extends indefinitely to the swearer’s descendants, paradoxically Horkos is simultaneously perceived as moving quickly to carry out punishment. In Hesiod, Horkos runs in order to punish perjury (WD 219), a feature that he preserves in classical literature as well (trag. adesp. 333a) and which, again, he shares with his nameless child20 who, “despite having no hands or feet, is swift in pursuit” (Hdt. 6.86). In this, too, Horkos share similarities with [cont.]

p. 12

the Erinyes as executors of cursing: the “swift-moving Horkos”, who cannot be outrun by perjury (trag. adesp. 333a), is matched by the “swift-running Erinys” (kampsipous, Aesch. Seven 791; cf. Soph. Aj. 837, 843) who quickly fulfils the curse of a wronged individual. Through this representation, Horkos follows and repro- duces the model of vengeful gods who speedily execute their divine punishment upon individuals and bring to fulfilment a curse (cf. e.g. Il. 1.37‒42, Od. 9.526‒36).

In his role of executing his punishment, Horkos also functions within the orbit of the well-known archaic sense of dikē – supervised by Zeus (WD 238‒9) – that concerns issues of personal gain and their judicial settlements.21 In his advice to his brother Perses to follow Justice (WD 213), Hesiod represents Horkos as running alongside the crooked judgements made by bribe-swallowing judges (WD 219‒21), who, like Perses, put their personal gain above justice.22 The god, again personified as a curse, ensures that whoever has trampled on their oath23 and committed perjury is punished.24 The Hesiodic presentation of Horkos as the curse of the oath goes hand-in-hand with the personified Dike in the same context, who “brings evil to those men who drive her out and do not deal straight” (223‒5). A breach of human justice in Hesiod can involve intervention and punishment from Horkos.

p. 19

2.2 Explicit self-curse and oath-taking

In the previous section it became apparent that the forms of divine punishment brought about by Horkos and the Erinyes ...

p. 39

... In Aeschines 3 (Against Ctesiphon), Horkos, in his well-known personification of divine punishment, is said to “haunt and torment” the dicast who took a wrong decision (3.233).

Lateiner

Bryn Mawr Classical Review: Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, Bd. 307

LSJ

s.v. ὅρκος

A.the object by which one swears,

2. oath, mostly with epithet.

II. Ὅρκος, personified, son of Eris, Hes.Op.804; a divinity who punishes the false and perjured, ib.219, Th.231, Orac. ap.Hdt.6.86.γ́; Διὸς Ὅ., as servant of Zeus, S.OC1767 (anap.). (Cogn. with ἕρκος.）

Perry

p. 469 [= Gibbs 170 (p. 88) = Chambry 280]

239 The Depositary and the god Horkos (Oath): A man who had received a deposit in trust from a friend was planning to deprive him of it, and when the depositor summoned him to account and reminded him of his oath he was worried about it and set out for the country. When he came to the gates of the city he saw a lame man going out and asked who he was and whither he was going. The lame person replied that he was Horkos and that he was going on his rounds against the perjurers. Then he asked him a further question, how long were the intervals between his customary visits to the cities? “Forty years, sometimes thirty,” said Horkos. Thereafter the man felt no longer hesitant, and on the next day declared on oath that he had not received the deposit. But he fell in with Horkos immediately afterwards, as it happened; and when he was being dragged away to be thrown over the cliff, he complained to Horkos that, after saying that he made his visits to the city at intervals of thirty years, he was now not giving him even one day’s amnesty. “But I assure you,” said the god, “that when anyone offends me exceedingly it is my custom to visit him on the very same day,”—H 354; Handford 158, TMI U232.

p. 621

Horkos, God of Oaths, visits a Perjurer, 469. 239

Smith

s.v. Horcus

(*(/Orkos), the personification of an oath, is described by Hesiod as the son of Eris, and the avenger of perjury. (Theog. 231, Op. 209 ; Hdt. 6.86.3.)

Torrance

p. 295

12.1.1 Divine action and intervention

The official divine guardians of oaths are variously represented as Horkos (Oath), the Erinyes (as oath-curses), Zeus Horkios (guardian of oaths), and also Themis. In Hesiod, Horkos is the child of Eris (Strife), and he “brings the most woe to humans on earth, when anyone willingly swears a false oath” (Hes. Thg. 231‒2, cf. WD 804). The man who swears falsely can expect his family to become “more obscure” (amauroterē), but the man who keeps his oath prospers (Hes. WD 282‒5). In Sophocles, Horkos is the son of Zeus (OC 1767), and Zeus is generally perceived as overseeing oaths in his capacity as Zeus Horkios (e.g. Soph. Phil. 1324, Eur. Hipp. 1025). On one occasion, Themis, as the daughter of Zeus, is called horkia (Med. 209). The Erinyes are connected with Horkos in Hesiod in that they attended his birth (WD 803‒4), while Oath has a “nameless” child in Herodotus who pursues and destroys the family of the perjurer (6.86). This nameless child is evidently the manifestation of the oath-curse contained in every formal oath, a curse which can be expected to pursue the perjurer (cf. ch. 2).

p. 297

Horkos is invoked once in Sophocles (OC 1767), and possibly once in Pindar (Nem. 11.24), although it is impossible to tell whether ναὶ μὰ γὰρ ὅρκον (or ῞Ορκον) should be understood as “by my oath” or “by Horkos”.⁶

6 For further discussion of oaths sworn in Pindar’s authorial persona, see ch. 13a.

West 1966

p. 232 on 231 Ὅρκόν

... An oath is by origin a curse which a man lays upon himself, to take effect if what he declares is false. The god Horkos is the personification of this curse ; that is why he is attended by the Erinyes in Op. 803.

p. 275 on 400 θεῶν μέγαν ... ὅρκον: ... Styx is to the gods much as Horkos to men (see on 231).

West 1978

p. 349 on 803-4 Ἐρινύας ἀμφιπολεύειν | Ὅρκον γεινόμενον

perjurers are punished by the deified Oath (219, Th. 231 f.) or by Erinyes (Il. 19.259 f.; cf. 3.278 f.). They are in particular danger on the 5th(s). Hesiod expresses this by saying that he was born on it, and the Erinyes are accommodated as attendants. ... The Byzantine hermerologies note under 5th, 15th and 25th (= the last fifth by forward reckoning, ... ) In the Assyrian almanacs the 5th is one of several days when one may not go to law, and on the 15th 'one may nit take oath' ...

Wheeler

p. 253

OATHS played an important role in Greek private and public life, and particularly in international relations. No promise, contract, agreement, truce, or treaty had binding force without its validation by a sworn oath. Oaths, however, not only validated agreements but also guaranteed them, for oaths were taken in the name of the gods who were thought to punish the perpetrators of perjury, bad faith, and oath breaking as well as their families and descendants. To break an oath meant waging war with the gods, and even gods could suffer from committing perjury. Condemnation of mala fides in international agreements is seen already in Homer, and oaths continued to be an indispensable component of treaties until the eighteenth century.