THE KING.
As the noble is to the freeman, so in some respects is the King to the
noble. He is the summit of his class, and completes the order of the
freemen. Even in the dim twilight of Teutonic history we find tribes and
nations subject to kings: others again acknowledged no such office, and
Tacitus seems to regard this state as the more natural to our
forefathers. I do not think this clear: on the contrary, kingship, in a
certain sense, seems to me rooted in the German mind and institutions,
and universal among some particular tribes and confederacies. The free
people recognize in the King as much of the national unity as they
consider necessary to their existence as a substantive body, and as the
representative of the whole nation they consider him to be a mediator
between themselves and the gods[220]. The elective principle is the
safeguard of their freedom; the monarchical principle is the condition
of their nationality. But this idea of kingship is not that which we now
generally entertain; it is in some respects more, in others less,
comprehensive.
-----
Footnote 220:
There is a tradition among the Swedes that if the gods expressed their
anger with the people by scarcity, or ill success in war, the most
acceptable offering to them was the King. See Yngling, Sag. c. xviii.
(Laing, i. 230); again, c. xlvii. (vol. i. p. 256), where the scene is
laid in Norway: because, says the Yngl. Sag., the Swiar were wont to
attribute to their kings the fruitfulness or dearth of the seasons.
Yet they did not interfere with the succession in the son of the
sacrificed king. See Geijer, Hist. i. 404.
-----
And here it seems necessary to recur to a definition of words. With us,
a king is the source both of the military and the judicial powers; he is
chief judge and general in chief; among protestants he is head of the
church, and only wants the functions of high priest, because the nature
of the church of Christ admits of no priestly body exclusively engaged
in the sacrifices, or in possession of the exclusive secrets, of the
cult[221]. But in the eye of the state, and as the head of a state
clergy, he is the high priest, the authority in which ultimately even
the parochial order centres and finds its completion. He is an officer
of the state; the highest indeed and the noblest, but to the state he
belongs as a part of itself: with us a commission of regency, a stranger
or a woman may perform all the functions of royalty; the houses of
parliament may limit them; a successful soldier may usurp them. With the
early Germans, the king was something different from this.
-----
Footnote 221:
1 Peter, ii. 5, 9.
-----
The inhabitants of the Mark or Gá, however numerous or however few they
may be, must always have some provision for the exigencies of peace and
war. But peace is the natural or normal state, that for which war itself
exists, and the institutions proper to war are the exception, not the
rule. Hence the priestly and judicial functions are permanent,—the
military, merely temporary. The former, whether united in the same
person, or divided between two or more, are the necessary conditions of
the existence of the state as a community; the latter are merely
requisite from time to time, to secure the free exertion of the former,
to defend the existence of the community against the attacks of other
communities.
We may admit that the father is the first priest and judge in his own
household; he has, above all other, the sacerdotal secrets, and the
peculiar rites, of family worship; these, not less than age, experience
and the dignity of paternity, are the causes and the justification of
his power. The judicial is a corollary from the sacerdotal authority.
But what applies to the individual household applies to any aggregate of
households: even as the family worship and the family peace require the
exertion of these powers for their own maintenance and preservation, so
do the public worship and the public peace require their existence,
though in a yet stronger degree. From among the heads of families some
one or more must be elected to discharge the all-important functions
which they imply. If the solemn festivals and public rites of the god
are to be duly celebrated, if the anger of the thunderer is to be
propitiated, and the fruits of the earth to be blessed,—if the wounded
cattle are to be healed, the fever expelled, or the secret malice of
evil spirits to be defeated,—who but the priest can lead the ceremonies
and prescribe the ritual? Who but he can sanctify the transfer of land,
the union of man and wife, the entrance of the newborn child upon his
career of life; who but himself can conduct judicial investigations,
where the deities are the only guardians of truth and avengers of
perjury, or where their supernatural power alone can determine between
innocence and guilt[222]? Lastly, who but he can possess authority to
punish the freeman for offences dangerous to the wellbeing of all
freemen? To what power less than that of God will the freeman condescend
to bow[223]?
-----
Footnote 222:
The various forms of the ordeal were undoubtedly pagan, though
retained by the Christian communities of the Germans.
Footnote 223:
Even in war the general had not at first the power of punishing the
freeman. The very urgencies of military discipline were subordinated
to the divine authority of the priests. “Duces exemplo potius quam
imperio, si prompti, si conspicui, si ante aciem agant, admiratione
praesunt. Ceterum neque animadvertere, neque vincire, ne verberare
quidem nisi sacerdotibus permissum; non quasi in poenam, nec ducis
jussu, sed velut deo imperante, quem adesse bellantibus credunt.” Tac.
Germ. vii.
-----
How then is it to be determined to whom such power, once admitted to be
necessary, shall be at first entrusted? The first claim clearly lies
with those who are believed to be descended from the gods, or from the
local god of each particular district[224]. They are his especial care,
his children; he led them into the land, and gave them the secret of
appeasing or pleasing him: he protects them by his power, and guides
them by his revelations: he is their family and household god, the
progenitor of their race, one of themselves; and they are the best,
indeed the only, expounders of his will. A single family, with which
others have by slow degrees united themselves, by which others have been
adopted, and which in process of time have thus become the nucleus of a
state, will probably remain in possession of this sacerdotal power; the
god of the land does not readily give place to others, and those with
whom his worship identifies him will continue to be his priests long
after others have joined in their ceremonies. Or it is possible that a
single household wandering from a more civilized community may be
admitted among a rude people, to whom they impart more perfect methods
of tillage, more efficient medical precepts, more impartial maxims of
law, better or more ornamental modes of architecture, or more accurate
computations of time, than they had previously possessed: the mysterious
courses of the stars, the secrets of building bridges[225], towers and
ships, of ploughing and of sowing, of music and of healing, have been
committed to them by their god: for the sake of the benefits they offer,
their god is received into the community; and they remain his priests
because they alone are cognizant of, and can conduct, the rites
wherewith he is to be served.
-----
Footnote 224:
“Diis genitos sacrosque reges.” Tac. Orat. 12.
Footnote 225:
It is a curious fact that _Pontifex_, literally the _bridge-maker_,
should be the generic Latin name for a priest. At Athens there was a
_gens_ of γεφυραίοι: were these ever a sacerdotal tribe?
-----
Even in periods so remote as not to be confounded with those of national
migrations, a small body of superior personal strength, physical beauty,
mental organization, or greater skill in arms, may establish a
preponderance over a more numerous but less favoured race: in such a
case they will probably join the whole mass of the people, receiving or
taking lands among them, and they will by right of their superiority
constitute a noble, sacerdotal, royal race, among a race of
freemen[226]. They may introduce their religion as well as their form of
government, as did the Dorians in the Peloponesus. Or if, as must
frequently be the case, a compromise take place, they and their god will
reserve the foremost rank, although the conquered or otherwise subjected
people may retain a share in the state, and vindicate for their ancient
deities a portion of reverence and cult: the gods of nature, of the
earth and agriculture, thus yield for a while to the supremacy of the
gods of mental cultivation and warlike prowess: Demeter gives way before
Apollo, afterwards however to recover a portion of her splendour: Odinn
obtains the soul of the warrior and the freeman; Ðórr must content
himself with that of the thrall.
Footnote 226:
Αἴτιον δὲ ... ὅτι τρόπον τινὰ ἀρετὴ τυγχάνουσα χορηγίας καὶ βιάζεσθαι
δύναται μάλιστα, καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ τὸ κρατοῦν ἐν ὑπεροχῆ ἀγαθοῦ τινὸς,
ὥστε δοκεῖν μὴ ἄνευ ἀρετῆς εἶναι τὴν βίαν.... Arist. Polit. I. cap. 6.
(Bekker.) We may remember the Incas in Peru.
-----
In all the cases described,—to which we may add violent conquest by a
migratory body, leaving only garrisons and governors behind it[227],—the
family or tribe which are the ruling tribe, are those in whom the
highest rank, dignity, nobility and power are inherent: but unless some
peculiar circumstances, arising within the ruling tribe itself, limit
the succession to the members of one household, as for example among the
Jews, the sanctity of the tribe will be general and not individual. They
will be alone qualified to hold the high and sacred offices; but the
will of the whole state[228], _i. e._ popular election, must determine
which particular man shall be invested with their functions. Out of the
noble race the election cannot indeed be made, but the choice of the
individual noble is, at first, free. This is the simplest mode of
stating the problem: history however is filled with examples of
compromise, where two or more noble tribes divide the supreme authority
in even or uneven shares: two kings, for instance, represent two tribes
of Dorians in the Spartan πολιτεια[229]. The seven great and hereditary
ministerial houses in the German empire, the five great Ooloos of the
Dooraunee Afghans, with their hereditary offices, represent similar
facts. Among the old Bavarians, the Agilolfings could alone hold the
ducal dignity, but three or four other families possessed a peculiar
nobility, raising them nearly as much above the rest of the nobles, as
the nobles were raised above the rest of the people. Under these
circumstances the attributes of sovereignty may be continually
apportioned: to one family it may belong to furnish kings or judges; to
another, generals; to a third, priests[230]; or this division may have
arisen in course of time, within a single family. Or again, the general
may only have been chosen, _pro re nata_, when the necessity of the case
required it, from among the judges or priests, or even from among those
who were not capable by birth of the judicial or sacerdotal power. We
are able to refer to an instance in support of this assertion; Beda[231]
says of the Oldsaxons, that is, the Saxons of the continent: “Non enim
habent regem iidem antiqui Saxones, sed satrapas plurimos, suae genti
praepositos, qui, ingruente belli articulo, mittunt aequaliter sortes,
et quemcumque sors ostenderit, hunc tempore belli ducem omnes sequuntur,
huic obtemperant; peracto autem bello, rursum aequalis potentiae omnes
fiunt satrapae.” And this throws light upon what Tacitus asserts of the
Germanic races generally[232]: “Eliguntur in iisdem conciliis et
principes, qui iura per pagos vicosque reddunt.”
-----
Footnote 227:
A fact abundantly familiar in the history of India, whether under
Afghan, Mogul or Mahratta rule.
Footnote 228:
The whole state may possibly consist only of the predominant tribe, as
Dorians or Ionians, or Anglosaxons: the rest of the population of the
country may be perioecian as were the inhabitants of Laconia, and the
British. The ruling tribe itself may have distinctions of rank; as for
instance the Hypomeiones among the Spartans, the Ceorlas among the
Anglosaxons.
Footnote 229:
The rule, _reges ex nobilitate, duces ex virtute_, ἀγαθοῦ τινος
ὑπεροχὴ, applies in strictness to this case. Agis or Agesilaus might
be generals, but Brasidas could not have been a king. Descent from
Heracles was to the Spartiate what descent from Wóden was to the
Saxon,—the condition of royalty.
Footnote 230:
In the Dooraunee empire, the Suddozyes had the exclusive right to
royalty. Sooja ul Moolk was the last of the race in Caubul. The
Essufzyes were hereditary viziers: the Barukzyes, the family of Dost
Mahomet Khan, hereditary commanders in chief: the union of the
vizierat with the military command in Dost Mahomet’s father, led to
the ultimate ruin of the Suddozye princes. In the Mogul empire, the
great offices of state became hereditary, and the historians of India
could speak of the Vizier of Oude, the Nizam, the Peishwa or the
Guicowar, long after the throne of Aurungzeb had crumbled to the dust.
Footnote 231:
Hist. Eccl. v. 10. Ælfred translates the word _satrapae_ by
_ealdormen_.
Footnote 232:
Germ. xii.
-----
The early separation of the judicial from the strictly sacerdotal
functions, to a certain degree at least, is easily conceived. It would
be mere matter of convenience, as soon as a population became numerous
and widely dispersed. Yet to a very late period among the Teutons we
find traces of the higher character. The ordeal or judgment of God, the
casting of lots and divination, are all derived from and connected with
priesthood. The heathen place of judgment was sanctified to the gods by
priestly ceremonies; nor can it be supposed that the popular councils
were held without a due inauguration by religious rites, or a marked
exertion of authority by the priests. Tacitus speaking of these
parliaments makes the intervention of the priest the very first step to
business: “Ut turbae placuit, considunt armati. Silentium per
sacerdotes, quibus tum et coercendi ius est, imperatur[233].” The
Witena-gemót of later times was opened by the celebration of mass[234],
and even yet Mr. Speaker goes to prayers. During the flourishing period
of Christianity among the Anglosaxons, synods of the bishops and their
clergy were commanded to be held twice a year, to act as supreme courts
of justice, at least in civil causes[235]. The law of the Visigoths,
while it recognizes a separation of the persons, implies a confusion of
the jurisdiction: “Si iudex vel sacerdos reperti fuerint nequiter
iudicasse[236].” The people, it is true, found the judgment or verdict,
but the judge declared the law, pronounced the sentence, and most
probably superintended the execution: in this he represented at once the
justice of the god, and the collective power of the state. Thus then we
may conclude that at first in every Mark, and more especially in every
Gá or Scír, when various Marks had coalesced, there was found at least
one man of a privileged family, who either permanently or for a time
conducted the public affairs during peace, and was, from his functions,
not less than his descent, nearly connected with the religion of the
people and the worship of the gods: whether this man be called
ealdorman, _iudex_, _rex_, _satrapa_ or _princeps_, seems of little
moment: he is the president of the freemen in their solemn acts, as long
as peace is maintained, the original King of the shire or small nation.
If he be by birth a priest, and distinguished by military talents, as
well as elected to be a judge, he unites all the conditions of
kingship[237]: and, under such circumstances, he will probably not only
extend his power over neighbouring communities, but even render it
permanent, if not hereditary, in his own: a similar process may take
place, if the priest or judge be one, the general another, of the same
household. We may conclude that the regal power grows out of the
judicial and sacerdotal, and that, whether the military skill and
authority be superadded or not, _king_ is only another name for the
judge of a small circuit[238]. It is only when many such districts have
been combined, when many such smaller kings have been subdued by one
more wise, more wealthy, powerful or fortunate than themselves, that the
complete idea of the German kingdom developes itself: that the judicial,
military, and even, in part, the priestly powers sink into a subordinate
position, and the kingdom represents the whole state, the freemen, the
nobles, and the _folcriht_ or public law of both. It is thus that the
king gains the ultimate and appellate jurisdiction, the right of
punishment, and the general conservancy of the peace, as well as the
power of calling the freemen to arms (cyninges ban, cyninges útware).
When this process has taken place the former kings have become
_subreguli_, _principes_, _duces_, ealdormen: they retain their
nobility, their original purity of blood, their influence perhaps over
their people; but they have sunk into subordinate officers of a state,
of which a king at once hereditary and elective is the head[239].
-----
Footnote 233:
Germ. xi.
Footnote 234:
“Quadam die multi tam nobiles quam privati primo mane ad ipsum locum
placitaturi convenerunt; sed ante placitum ut Presbyter eis missam
celebraret rogaverunt. At ille, qui ipsa nocte cum uxore dormierat, ad
sacrum altaris officium accedere formidabat; itaque negavit se id
facturum,” etc. about an. 1045. Sim. Dunelin. Hist. Eccl. Dun. cap.
xlv. (lib. iii. cap. 10. p. 169. Ed. of 1732.)
Footnote 235:
If Dönniges is right in his view, the Frankish clergy were to exercise
a similar jurisdiction in criminal causes of a grave nature. Deutsches
Staatsrecht. p. 30.
Footnote 236:
Leg. Visig. ii. 1. § 23.
Footnote 237:
“Hic etenim et rex illis et pontifex ob suam peritiam habebatur, et in
sua iustitia populos iudicabat.” Jornandes.
Footnote 238:
“Nec potest aliquis iudicare in temporalibus, nisi solus rex vel
subdelegatus: ipse namque ex virtute sacramenti ad hoc specialiter
obligatur, et ideo coronâ insignitur, ut per iudicia populum regat
sibi subiectum.” Fleta, lib. i. cap. 17. § 1.
Footnote 239:
“Le titre de roi était primitivement de nulle conséquence chez les
barbares. Ennodius, évêque de Paris, dit d’une armée du grand
Théodoric: '_Il y avait tant de rois_ dans cette armée, que leur
nombre était au moins égal à celui des soldats qu’on pouvait nourrir
avec les subsistances exigées des habitans du district où elle
campait.'” Michelet, Hist. France, i. 198, note.
-----
We are tolerably familiar with the fact that at least eight kingdoms
existed at once in Saxon England; but many readers of English history
have yet to learn that royalty was much more widely spread, even at the
time when we hear but of eight, seven or six predominant kings: as this
is a point of some interest, a few examples may not be amiss.
It is probable that from the very earliest times Kent had at least two
kings, whose capitals were respectively Canterbury and Rochester, the
seat of two bishoprics[240]. The distinction of East and West Kentings
is preserved till the very downfall of the Saxon monarchy: not only do
we know that Eádríc and Hlóðhere reigned together; but also that Wihtred
and his son Æðelberht the Second did so[241]. Óswine is mentioned as a
king of Kent during the period when our general authorities tell us of
Ecgberht alone[242]; contemporary with him we have Swæbheard, another
king[243], and all these extend into the period usually given to Eádríc
and Hlóðhere. The later years of Æðelberht the Second must have seen his
power shared with Eádberht[244], Eardwulf[245], Sigirǽd[246] and
Ecgberht[247], and Sigirǽd deliberately calls himself king of half Kent.
A very remarkable document of Eádbehrt is preserved in the Textus
Roffensis[248]; after the king’s own signature, in which he calls
himself Rex Cantuariorum, his nobles place their names, thus, “Ego
Wilbaldus comites meos confirmare et subscribere feci:” and in the same
words Dimheahac, Hósberht, Nothbalth, Banta, Ruta and Tidbalth sign. Now
the fact of these persons having _comites_ at all is only conceivable on
the supposition that they were all royal, kings or sub-kings. That they
were subordinate appears from the necessity of the grant being confirmed
by Æðelberht, which took place in presence of the grantor and grantee,
and the Archbishop, at Canterbury. Among the kings of this small
province are also named Æðelríc, Heardberht, Eádberht Pren[249] and
Ealhmund[250], the last prince, father of the celebrated Ecgberht of
Wessex.
-----
Footnote 240:
At a later period we find a duchy of the Merscware, or inhabitants of
Romney marsh, and this is certainly in favour of a third Kentish
kingdom. William of Malmesbury speaks of the reguli whom Æðelberht had
subdued, and it is probable that these were petty princes of Kent.
Gest. Reg. lib. 1. § 10.
Footnote 241:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 72, 77, 86, 108.
Footnote 242:
Ibid. Nos. 8, 10, 30.
Footnote 243:
Ibid. Nos. 14, 15. Beda, Hist. Eccl. v. 8.
Footnote 244:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 85, 106, 107.
Footnote 245:
Ibid. No. 96.
Footnote 246:
Ibid. Nos. 110, 114.
Footnote 247:
Ibid. Nos. 113, 132, 135, 160.
Footnote 248:
Ibid. No. 85.
Footnote 249:
Flor. Wig. an. 794.
Footnote 250:
Flor. Wig. App. _Wessex_.
-----
Among the territories which at one time or other were incorporated with
the kingdom of Mercia, one is celebrated under the name of Hwiccas: it
comprised the then diocese of Worcester. This small province not only
retained its king till a late period[251], but had frequently several
kings at once; thus Ósric[252] and Óshere[253]; Æðelweard[254],
Æðelheard[255], Æðelríc[256] and in all probability Óswudu, between an.
704-709. A few years later, viz. between an. 757 and 785, we find three
brothers Eánberht[257], Ealdred[258] and Uhtred[259] claiming the royal
title in the same district, while Offa their relative swayed the
paramount sceptre of Mercia. That other parts of that great kingdom had
always formed separate states is certain: even in the time of Penda (who
reigned from 626 to 656) we know that the Middle Angles were ruled by
Peada, his son[260], while Merewald, another son, was king of the West
Hecan or people of Herefordshire[261]. In the important battle of
Winwidfeld, where the fall of Penda perhaps secured the triumph of
Christianity, we learn that thirty royal commanders fell on the Mercian
side[262]. Under Æðilræd, Penda’s son and successor, we find Beorhtwald
calling himself a king in Mercia[263]. During the reign of Centwine in
Wessex, we hear of a king, Baldred, whose kingdom probably comprised
Sussex and part of Hampshire[264]; at the same period also we find
Æðilheard calling himself king of Wessex[265], and perhaps also a
brother Æðilweard[266] unless this be an error of transcription.
Friðuwald in a charter to the Monastery of Chertsey, mentions the
following _subreguli_ as concurring in the grant: Ósríc, Wighard and
Æðelwald[267].
-----
Footnote 251:
We lose sight of the Hwiccian kings about the time of Offa’s death, or
an. 796. In 802 we hear indeed of an ealdorman of the Hwiccas, but the
Latin authorities translate this by _dux_.
Footnote 252:
Cod. Dipl. No. 12.
Footnote 253:
Ibid. Nos. 17, 36.
Footnote 254:
Ibid. No. 56.
Footnote 255:
Ibid. No. 53.
Footnote 256:
Ibid. No. 57.
Footnote 257:
Ibid. Nos. 102, 105.
Footnote 258:
Ibid. Nos. 125, 131, 146.
Footnote 259:
Ibid. Nos. 117, 118, 128, 148.
Footnote 260:
Beda, Hist. Eccl. iii. 21.
Footnote 261:
Flor. Wig. App. _Mercia_.
Footnote 262:
Beda, Hist. Eccl. iii. 24. “Inito ergo certamine, fugati sunt et caesi
pagani, duces regii triginta qui ad auxilium venerant pene omnes
interfecti.” The Saxon Chronicle is more detailed; an. 654: “Hér Óswiú
cyng ofslóh Pendan cyng on Winwidfelda and þrittig cynebearna mid him;
and ðǽr wǽron sume cyningas. Ðǽra sum wæs Æðelhere Annan bróðor,
Eástengla cyningas.”
Footnote 263:
Cod. Dipl. No. 26. William of Malmesbury, it is true, says of him,
“Non quidem rex potestate, sed subregulus in quadam regni parte.” Vit.
Aldhelmi, Ang. Sacra, ii. 10. But it was not to be expected that
Malmesbury would understand such a royalty as Baldred’s.
Footnote 264:
Will. Malm., Ant. Glast. an. 681, pp. 308, 309. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 20,
28, 71, 73.
Footnote 265:
Cod. Dipl. No. 76.
Footnote 266:
Ibid. No. 73.
Footnote 267:
Ibid. No. 987.
-----
There was a kingdom of Elmet in Yorkshire, and even till the tenth
century one of Bamborough. The same facts might easily be shown of
Eastanglia[268], Essex and Northumberland, were it necessary; but enough
seems to have been said to show how numerously peopled with kings this
island, always _fertilis tyrannorum_[269], must have been in times
whereof history has no record. As a chronicler of the twelfth century
has very justly said, “Ea tempestate venerunt multi et saepe de
Germania, et occupaverunt Eástangle et Merce sed necdum sub uno rege
redacti erant. Plures autem proceres certatim regiones occupabant, unde
innumerabilia bella fiebant: proceres vero, quia multi erant, nomine
carent[270].”
-----
Footnote 268:
“Igitur rex unus ibi erat aliquando, multi aliquando reguli.” Henric.
Hunt. lib. v. “Rex autem Eádmundus ipsis temporibus regnavit super
omnia regna Eastanglorum.” Sim. Dunelm. an. 870.
Footnote 269:
εἶναι δὲ καὶ πολυάνθρωπον τὴν νῆσον ... βασιλεῖς τε καὶ δυνάστας
πολλοὺς ἔχειν. Diod. Sic. v. 21.
Footnote 270:
Henric. Hunt. lib. ii.
-----
From all that has preceded, it is clear that by the term King we must
understand something very different among the Anglosaxons from the sense
which we attach to the word: one principal difference lies indeed in
this, that the notion of territorial influence is never for a single
moment involved in it. The kings are kings of tribes and peoples, but
never of the land they occupy,—kings of the Westsaxons, the Mercians or
the Kentings, but not of Wessex, Mercia or Kent. So far indeed is this
from being the case, that there is not the slightest difficulty in
forming the conception of a king, totally without a kingdom:
“Solo rex verbo, sociis tamen imperitabat”[271]
is a much more general description than the writer of the line imagined.
The Norse traditions are full of similar facts[272]. The king is in
truth essentially one with the people; from among them he springs, by
them and their power he reigns; from them he receives his name; but his
land is like theirs, private property; one estate does not owe
allegiance to another, as in the feudal system: and least of all is the
monstrous fiction admitted even for a moment, that the king is owner of
all the land in a country.
-----
Footnote 271:
Abbo de Bello Paris. Civit. Pertz, ii. 779.
Footnote 272:
Langebek. ii. 77. Dahlmann, Gesch. d. Dänen, p. 51.
-----
The Teutonic names for a king are numerous and various, especially in
the language of poetry; many of them are immediately derived from the
words which denote the aggregations of the people themselves: thus from
þeód, we have the Anglosaxon þeóden; from folc, the Old Norse Fylkr; but
the term which, among all the Teutons, properly denotes this dignity, is
derived from the fact which Tacitus notices, viz. the nobility of the
king: the Anglosaxon cyning is a direct derivative from the adjective
cyne, _generosus_, and this again from cyn, _genus_[273].
-----
Footnote 273:
The Old High Dutch word is Chuninc; the Old Norse Konungr: the Gothic
equivalent has not been found, but certainly was Kuniggs.
-----
The main distinction between the king and the rest of the people lies in
the higher value set upon his life, as compared with theirs: as the
wergyld or life-price of the noble exceeds that of the freeman or the
slave, so does the life-price of the king exceed that of the noble. Like
all the people he has a money value, but it is a greater one than is
enjoyed by any other person in the state[274]. So again his protection
(mund) is valued higher than that of any other: and the breach of his
peace (cyninges handsealde frið) is more costly to the wrong-doer. He is
naturally the president of the Witena-gemót and the ecclesiastical
synod, and the supreme conservator of the public peace.
-----
Footnote 274:
In Kent, Mercia and Wessex, the king’s wergyld was 120 pounds: half
belonged to his family, half to his people.
-----
To the king belonged the right of calling out the national levies, the
_posse comitatus_, for purposes of attack or defence; the privilege of
recommending grave causes at least to the consideration of the
tribunals; the reception of a certain share of the fines legally
inflicted on evil-doers, and of voluntary gifts from the free men; and
as a natural and rapid consequence, the levy of taxes and the
appointment of fiscal officers. Consonant with his dignity were the
ceremonies of his recognition by the people, and the outward marks of
distinction which he bore: immediately upon his election he was raised
upon a shield and exhibited to the multitude, who greeted him with
acclamations[275]. Even in heathen times it is probable that some
religious ceremony accompanied the solemn rite of election and
installation: the Christian priesthood soon caused the ceremony of
anointing the new king, perhaps as head of the church, to be looked upon
as a necessary part of his inauguration. To him were appropriated the
waggon and oxen[276]; in this he visited the several portions of his
kingdom, traversed the roads, and proclaimed his peace upon them; and I
am inclined to think, solemnly ascertained and defined the national
boundaries[277],—a duty symbolical in some degree, of his guardianship
of the private boundaries. Among all the tribes there appear to have
been some outward marks of royalty, occasionally or constantly borne:
the Merwingian kings were distinguished by their long and flowing
hair[278], the Goths by a fillet or cap; among the Saxons the cynehelm,
or cynebeáh, a circle of gold, was in use, and worn round the head. In
the Ðing or popular council he bore a wand or staff: in wartime he was
preceded by a banner or flag. The most precious however of all the royal
rights, and a very jewel in the crown, was the power to entertain a
_comitatus_ or collection of household retainers, a subject to be
discussed in a subsequent chapter.
-----
Footnote 275:
“Levatus in regem: tó cyninge áhafen,” continued to be the words in
use, long after the custom of really chairing the king had in all
probability ceased to be observed.
Footnote 276:
The Merwingian kings continued to use this: perhaps not the Carolings.
Among the Anglosaxons I find no trace of it.
Footnote 277:
This duty of riding through the land, called by Grimm the “landes
bereisung” (Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 237), is probably alluded
to by Beda in his account of Eádwine. Hist. Eccl. ii. 16.
Footnote 278:
θεμιτὸν γὰρ τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τῶν Φράγγων οὐπώποτε κείρεσθαι, ἀλλ’
ἀκειρεκόμαι τέ εἰσιν ἐκ παίδων ἀεὶ, καὶ παρηώρηνται αὐτοῖς ἅπαντες εὖ
μάλα ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων οἱ πλόκαμοι ... τοῦτο δὲ ὅσπερ τι γνώρισμα καὶ γέρας
ἐξαίρετον τῷ βασιλείῳ γένει ἀνεῖσθαι νεμόμισται. Agathias. bk. 1. 4.
-----
The king, like all other freemen, was a landed possessor, and depended
for much of his subsistence upon the cultivation of his estates[279]. In
various parts of the country he held lands in absolute property,
furnished with dwellings and storehouses, in which the produce of his
farms might be laid up, and from one to another of which he proceeded,
as political exigencies, caprice, or the consumption of his hoarded
stock rendered expedient. In each villa or wíc was placed a bailiff,
_villicus_, _wícgeréfa_, whose business it was to watch over the kings
interests, to superintend the processes of husbandry, and govern the
labourers employed in production; above all to represent the king as
regarded the freemen and the officers of the county court.
-----
Footnote 279:
“De victu ex regis praediis.” “Ðis is ðonne seó lihtingc ðe ic wylle
eallon folce gebeorgan ðe hig ǽr ðyson midgedrehte wǽron ealles tó
swýðe. Dæt is ðonne ǽrost. ðæt ic bebeóde eallum mínan geréfan ðæt hi
on mínan ágenan rihtlíce tilian ⁊ me mid ðám feormian. ⁊ ðæt him nán
man ne þearf tó feormfultume nán þingc syllan bútan he sylf wille. And
gif hwá æfter ðám wíte crafige beó he his weres scyldig wið ðone
cyningc.” Cnut, § lxx. Thorpe, i. 412, 413. “I command all my reeves
that they justly provide [for me] out of my own property, and maintain
me therewith; and that no man need give me anything as farm-aid
(feormfultum) unless he himself be willing.” We here witness the
natural progress of oppression.
The lot, share, or, as we may call it, τεμενος of the king, though thus
divided, was extensive, and comprised many times the share of the
freeman. We may imagine that it originally, and under ordinary
circumstances would be calculated upon the same footing as the wergyld;
that if the life of the king was seventy-two times as valuable as that
of the ceorl, his land would be seventy-two times as large; if the one
owned thirty, the other would enjoy 2160 acres of arable land. But the
_comitatus_ offers a disturbing force, which, it will hereafter be seen,
renders this sort of calculation nugatory in practice; and the
experience of later periods clearly proves the king to have been a
landowner in a very disproportionate degree. In addition to the produce
of his own lands, however, the king was entitled to expect voluntary
gifts in kind, _naturalia_, from the people, which are not only
distinctly stated by Tacitus[280] to have been so given, but are
frequently referred to by early continental historians[281]. In process
of time, when these voluntary gifts had been converted into settled
payments or taxes, further voluntary aids were demanded, upon the visit
of a king to a town or country, the marriage of a princess, or of the
king himself, and other public and solemn occasions; from which in
feudal times arose the custom of demanding aids from the tenants to
knight the lord’s son or marry his daughter.
-----
Footnote 280:
“Mos est civitatibus, ultro ac viritim conferre principibus, vel
armentorum, vel frugum, quod pro honore acceptum, etiam necessitatibus
subvenit. Gaudent praecipue finitiniarum gentium donis, quae non modo
a singulis, sed publice mittuntur: electi equi, magna arma, phalerae,
torquesque. Iam et pecuniam accipere docuimus.” Germ. xv.
Footnote 281:
“In die autem Martis campo secundum antiquam consuetudinem dona illis
regibus a populo offerebantur, et ipse rex sedebat in sella regia,
circumstante exercitu, et maior domus coram eo.” an. 753. Annal.
Laurishamenses Minores (Pertz, Monumenta, i. 116). See other instances
in Grimm’s Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 245, etc.
-----
Another source of the royal revenue was a share of the booty taken in
war, where the king and the freemen served together. The celebrated
story of Clovis and the Soissons vase[282], proves that the king
received his portion by lot, as did the rest of his army; but there is
no reason to doubt that his share as much exceeded that of his comrades,
as his wergyld and landed possessions were greater than theirs.
-----
Footnote 282:
Greg. Turon. ii. 27.
-----
As conservator of the public peace, the king was entitled to a portion
of the fines inflicted on criminals, and the words in which Tacitus
mentions this fact show that he was in this function the representative
of the whole state[283]: it is a prerogative derived from his executive
power. And similar to this is his right to the forfeited lands of
felons, which, if they were to be forfeited, could hardly be placed in
other hands than those of the king, as representative of the whole
state[284].
-----
Footnote 283:
“Sed et levioribus delictis, pro modo poenarum, equorum pecorumque
numero convicti multantur, pars multae regi vel civitati, pars ipsi
qui vindicatur vel propinquis eius exsolvitur.” Germ. xii.
Footnote 284:
“Unam mansam quam fur quidam ante possederat, a rege cum triginta
mancusis auri emit.” Cod. Dipl. No. 580. Bishop Denewulf had leased
lands to a relative named Ælfred, for a fixed rent. “Is equidem
insipiens adulterans stuprum, propriam religiose pactatam abominans,
scortum diligens, libidinose commisit. Quo reatu omni substantia
peculiali recte privatus est, et praefatum rus ab eo abstractum rex
huius patriae suae ditioni avidus devenire iniuste optavit.” Cod.
Dipl. No. 601. The injustice complained of is in the king’s seizing
lands that were really not the offender’s: but so strong was the
king’s right, that the church was obliged to buy back its own land for
one hundred and twenty mancusses of gold. That these forfeitures
resulted from a solemn judicial act admits of no doubt. In 1002, a
lady who owned lands was found guilty of certain acts, her lands were
forfeited, and made over to the king, in the language of the
instrument, “vulgari traditione.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1296. In 938 Æðelstán
gave seven hides of land to the church at Winchester: “istarum autem
vii mansarum quantitas iusto valde iudicio totius populi, seniorum et
primatum, ablata fuit ab eis qui eorum possessores fuerunt, quia
aperto crimine furti usque ad mortem obnoxii inventi sunt; ideoque
decretum est ab omni populo ut libri illorum, quos ad has terras
habebant, aeternaliter dampnarentur,” etc. Cod. Dipl. No. 374.
Æðelsige stole Æðelwine’s swine: his land at Dumbleton was accordingly
forfeited to the king. “⁊ man geréhte Æðelrede cyninge ðæt land ⁊
ǽhta.” Cod. Dipl. No. 692. The law of the Ripuarian Franks seems to
have been somewhat different: see Tit. § lxxix. de homine penduto et
eius hereditate; and Eichhorn, i. 269.
-----
In proportion as this idea gains ground, the influence of the king in
every detail of public life necessarily increases, and the regalia or
royal rights become more varied and numerous: he is looked upon as the
protector of the stranger, who has no other natural guardian, inasmuch
as no stranger can be a member of any of those associations which are
the guarantee of the freeman. He has the sole right of settling the
value and form of the medium of exchange: through his power of calling
out the armed force, he obtains rights which can only consist with
martial law,—even the right of life and death[285]: the justice of the
whole country flows from him: the establishment of fiscal officers
dependent upon himself places the private possessions of the freeman at
his disposal. The peculiar conservancy of the peace, and command over
the means of internal communication enable him to impose tolls on land-
and water-carriage: he is thus also empowered to demand the services of
the freemen to receive and conduct travelling strangers, heralds or
ambassadors from one royal vill to another; to demand the aid of their
carts and horses to carry forage, provisions or building-materials to
his royal residence. Treasure-trove is his, because where there is no
owner, the state claims the accidental advantage, and the king is the
representative of the state. It is part of his dignity that he may
command the aid of the freemen in his hunting and fishing; and hence
that he may compel them to keep his hawks and hounds, and harbour or
feed his huntsmen. As head of the church he has an important influence
in the election of bishops, even in the establishment of new sees, or
the abolition of old established ones. His authority it is that appoints
the duke, the geréfa, perhaps even the members of the Witena-gemót.
Above all, he has the right to divest himself of a portion of these
attributes, and confer them upon those whom he pleases, in different
districts.
-----
Footnote 285:
I may again refer to the story of the vase at Soissons. Clovis put the
soldier to death on pretext of a breach of discipline; in reality,
because the man had opposed him with respect to the booty. But, except
in the field, it is not to be imagined that Clovis could have taken
his life; and certainly not without a legal conviction and
condemnation by the people.
-----
The complete description of the rights of Royalty, in all their detail,
will find a place in the Second Book of this work; they can only be
noticed cursorily here, inasmuch as they appertain, in strictness, to a
period in which the monarchical spirit, and the institutions proper
thereto, had become firmly settled, and applied to every part of our
social scheme. But whatever extension they may have attained in process
of time, they have their origin in the rights permitted to the king,
even in the remotest periods of which we read.
There cannot be the least doubt that many of them were usurpations,
gradual developments of an old and simple principle; and it is only in
periods of advanced civilization that we find them alluded to.
Nevertheless we must admit that even at the earliest recorded time in
our history, the kings were not only wealthy but powerful far beyond any
of their fellow-countrymen. All intercourse with foreign nations,
whether warlike or peaceful, tends to this result, because treaties and
grave affairs of state can best be negotiated and managed by single
persons: a popular council may be very properly consulted as to the
final acceptance or rejection of terms; but the settlement of them can
obviously not be beneficially conducted by so unwieldy a multitude.
Moreover contracting parties on either side will prefer having to do
with as small a number of negotiators as possible, if it be only for the
greater dispatch of business. Accordingly Tacitus shows us, on more than
one occasion, the Senate in communication with the princes, not the
populations of Germany[286]: and this must naturally be the case where
the aristocracy, to whose body the king belongs, have the right of
taking the initiative in public business[287].
Footnote 286:
“Adgandestrii, principis Cattorum, lectas in Senatu literas.” Annal.
ii. 88. “Maroboduum ... per dona et legationes petivisse foedus.”
Annal. ii. 45. “Misitque legatos ad Tiberium oraturos auxilia.” Ibid.
Footnote 287:
“De minoribus rebus principes consultant; de maioribus omnes: ita
tamen, ut ea quoque, quorum penes plebem arbitrium est, apud principes
pertractentur.... Mox rex vel princeps, prout aetas cuique, prout
nobilitas, prout decus bellorum, prout facundia est, audiuntur,
auctoritate suadendi magis quam iubendi potestate.” Mor. Germ. xi.
-----
But although we find a great difference in the social position, wealth
and power of the king, and those of the noble and freeman, we are not to
imagine that he could at any time exercise his royal prerogatives
entirely at his royal pleasure[288]: held in check by the universal love
of liberty, by the rights of his fellow nobles, and the defensive
alliances of the freemen[289], he enjoyed indeed a rank, a splendour and
an influence which placed him at the head of his people,—a limited
monarchy, but happier than a capricious autocracy: and the historian who
had groaned over the vices and tyranny of Tiberius, Nero and Domitian,
could give the noble boon of his testimony to the eternal memory of the
_barbarous_ Arminius.
-----
Footnote 288:
“Nec regibus infinita, nec libera potestas.” Mor. Germ. vii. “Auctore
Verrito et Malorige, qui nationem eam regebant, in quantum Germani
regnantur.” Tac. Annal. xiii. 54.
Footnote 289:
“Ceterum Arminius, abscedentibus Romanis et pulso Maroboduo, regnum
adfectans, libertatem popularium adversam habuit, petitusque armis,
cum varia fortuna certaret, dolo propinquorum cecidit.” Tac. Annal.
ii. 88.
-----