The taking of an oath
or
the official / the personal
Let me relate a little anecdote from the criminal world which is not without some psychological interest.
It was a case where a man could, as the phrase is, "free himself" by an oath, that is, free himself temporally by binding himself eternally with a perjury. The person in question was sufficiently well known to the magistrate and had often been punished. The magistrate did not have it in his power to prevent a resort to an oath, but morally was fully convinced that it was a false oath. So the man took the oath.
When the case was concluded his Honor visited the man who had been tried, entered into personal conversation with him and said, "Wouldst thou dare to give me thy hand on it that what thou hast sworn is true?" "No," he replied, "no, your Honor, that I will not do."
Here is an example of the difference between the official and the personal. For one who belongs essentially to the criminal world to clear himself by an oath is something official, something he cannot for an instant hesitate to do, or harbor the least doubt that it is justifiable, for it is something he knows all about by long continued practice; for him it is a matter of course, people do such things officially, imperson ally, the trick consists in being deft at giving the case such a turn that one can clear oneself by an oath, the taking of an oath is no more than saying "Prosit" to one who sneezes, or adding Esq. to a letter. In vain the solemnity of an oath seeks to make an impression upon him as a personal matter; in vain, for this is a business affair, he himself is official, is officially armed against every impression he knows in advance they will try to make upon him, and so he officially takes the oath. The whole thing, as he understands it, is ex officio.
But personally, no; personally he cannot make up his mind to con firm solemnly a lie. "Wouldst thou dare to give me thy hand on it?" "No, your Honor, that I will not do."
Everyone who has the least practice will surely concede the truth of the assertion that (passing over to an entirely different world) this case occurs not too rarely, that one will be able to get a priest to acknowl edge in private conversation (especially if he is personally touched) that he has a different conviction from that which he officially pro nounces, or perhaps that he is personally dubious about what he pub licly pronounces with "full conviction." And yet the priest is in fact bound by an oath, he has taken an oath which is supposed to give assurance that what he publicly pronounces is his sincere conviction. Ah, yes, but in the priest-world this thing about taking an oath belongs definitely to the official — the thing must be done if one is to get into the living. One takes the oath officially, and preaches officially what one is bound to by the oath. "But answer me honestly, Pastor B., wilt thou give me thy hand on it that this is thy conviction, or wilt thou confirm it upon the memory of thy deceased wife — for to me, for my own sake, in order that I may put an end to my doubt, it is so im portant for me to learn to know thy true opinion?" "No, my friend; no, that I cannot do, thou must not require it of me."
The taking of an oath — that surely should give complete assurance that the thing is personal! However, the oath (the oath which is the condition of getting into a living etc., O God, lead us not into tempta tion), the oath is perhaps taken officially. "But is it really thy conviction thou dost teach? I adjure thee by the memory of thy deceased wife that to help me thou wilt tell me thy honest opinion." "No, my friend, that I cannot do."