Page:The history of medieval Europe.djvu/86

50 THE HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL EUROPE brought fame and influence to its leader both in his own and neighboring tribes. The followers did not regard their posi- tion as dependent in any humiliating or restrictive sense, but felt themselves the social equals of their leader. There were, nevertheless, in the time of Tacitus grades among them, " assigned by the judgment of their leader" and "great rivalry ... as to who shall rank first with the chief." But on the whole we see in the comitatus another illustra- tion of the importance of youth, social equality, and volun- tary organization among the early Germans. Although the Germans engaged so much in war, they were not a lawless people. They had their ancient customs Early Ger- and standards, which they tried to fix in their man law memories by alliterative or proverbial expres- sions. They had their folk-courts, local magistrates, and "law-speakers," but no police. A man's kindred were sup- posed to look after him and see that he kept the peace. The individuals concerned in a case and the community as a whole had to bring wrongdoers to court, and to enforce rights or execute sentences after these had been determined in court. The law was very strict, and less fair than the law of the Roman Empire. One had to suffer for his act, regard- less of whether his intention had been good or evil. Legal procedure consisted chiefly of set forms of words and ceremonies employed by the litigants themselves to Judicial decide the controversy. These forms must be procedure observed most scrupulously, and one was not permitted to repeat in order to rectify a mistake. A lawsuit normally opened by the plaintiff's going with witnesses to the house of the defendant and formally summoning him to appear in court. At the court the plaintiff, holding a staff in his hand, made his complaint in set terms, and the defend- ant had to answer by denying each charge fully and explic- itly or he would be regarded as admitting its truth. The court then straightway decided which of the two parties should be put to further proof. Their methods of proof were not the careful sifting of evidence, but by oath or by ordeal. The only sort of testimony that they desired was that of