Just like today, perjury, or lying under oath, was a problem in ancient Greece. The Greeks used verbal oaths to make deals or agreements. These oaths were unbreakable, and if you did break them you and your children would face punishment from the gods in the form of a curse. But what if an oath-taker swears to do a service, but is prevented from keeping his sworn promise by external circumstances, which are not of his causing, then has he committed perjury? And if a sworn man swears to the truth of a statement, not knowing it to be false, does he commit perjury"?;

In the Iliad Hector swears to give Achilles' horses to Dolon. But according to Homer the oath he swore was false, even though Dolon died, which prevented the fulfillment of the oath, and his death was entirely independent of Hector's will. Homer is not considering the intention of the oath-taker. This implies that a perjurer is a person who swears an objectively false proposition.

Hesoid on the other hand did take the oath-taker in consideration: "god Oath...most grieves men on earth when they willfully swear false oaths." Herodutus said that "even the will to commit perjury, without the deed, would bring down punishment." Aristotle was the first to differentiate between the perjury of a promissory oath, breaking an oath, and the perjury of an assertory oath, intentionally swearing a false oath.

In the third century B.C. Cleanthus decided that an oath taker swears rightly or falsely at the time he swears. If he intends to do the things he swears to do in the oath he swears rightly. But if he has no intention of performing them he swears falsely. Chrysippus, on the other hand, said that an assertory oath is true or false, but a promissory oath is either good or bad. According to Chrysippus a man is not a perjurer at the time he swears to an oath if he swears falsely, but becomes one when it is time to fulfill the terms of the oath.

Aristotle, Cleanthus, and Chrysippus agree that the intention of an oath-taker is an essential factor of perjury. And they disagree as to whether the intention can be applied to the future (promissory oath) or the past and present (assertory oath).

Ethical-Religious Aspect of Perjury.

The curse of the oath is connected to its religious aspect. According to Homer a "perjurer is a sinner in the eyes of gods, and the Furies" And impossibilities that prevent the fulfillment of an oath do not relieve one from the obligations of the oath. Hesoid said that the perjurer makes an oath a punishment, and Herodotus says the perjurer is stricken by the curse.

This made many believe the curse was magic and the only way to break the spell was to fulfill the oath. This magic was so strong that not even the gods could escape the curse in case of perjury. According to Herodotus, "Delphian Apollo assured that the curse would strike, if not the perjurer himself, then certainly his offspring." And because some oaths were sworn under stress of necessity and then broken, the gods learned how to separate forced oaths from voluntary oaths and did not require their observance.

The Legal Aspect of Perjury

Perjury as false testimony was a legal offense and subject to legal action. In Athens legislation on perjury has been dated fifth century. Because depositions were oral cases of perjury were rare and difficult to prove. In the beginning of the fourth century when depositions became written, perjury cases were more frequent, since they were easier to prove.

Prosecution of false testimony was encouraged and slight penalties were given to the prosecutor in cases of failure. A small fee was given to the party that brought fourth the notice of perjury if they failed to follow up with formal indictment.

Perjury before arbitrators was not punishable. "For it is not the same, men of Athens, to give false evidence before you and before the arbitrator; great indignation and penalty await those who gave false testimony before you; but before the arbitrator they give what evidence they wish, without risk and without shame." Many people wanted to solve problems through arbitrators because there was no risk to lying.

Those convicted usually paid a fine to the wronged party or to the prosecutor and to the treasury. All penalties were decided upon by the judges. Also those convicted faced contempt of court charges, with the penalty of loss of citizenship rights. However, if the prosecutor of the case is unsuccessful, he had to pay the alleged perjurer an amount equal to one third of the litigation sum. Over time there was development in the legal punishment for perjury. Gradual progression of simple compensation to additional punitive fines to the state.

Back to the Introduction.