that kingly power seems to increase in proportion to the distance we advance from the borders of southern civilisation. Of the tribes in the neighbourhood of the Roman frontier, only the Hermunduri and the Marcomanni are known to have been monarchical, and of these the latter were newcomers. Of the Goths, whose position was far more remote, we are told that "they were subject to somewhat more strict kingly government, though not to a degree incompatible with liberty."[1] Among the Swedes, on the other hand, the most remote people of undoubtedly Teutonic blood mentioned by Tacitus, the king's power is said to be subject to no reservations.[2]
The presence of a priesthood and monarchy side by side in the same state is no insuperable objection to this theory. The case may arise in several ways. The sanctity attached to the king may become so great that he comes to be regarded as too holy to engage in war or to transact worldly business. A viceroy is then appointed, such as we find among the Volga Russians. This viceroyalty may become hereditary and gradually develop into kingship. This is what is actually found among the Franks. The viceroyalty became hereditary among the descendants of Pippin of Landen, though more than a century elapsed before the Merowing family ceased to reign.[3] In early times, however, it is frequently the case that the monarchy is not co-extensive with the tribe. Sometimes we find several kings in the same tribe—a case which often arose through the division of power between brothers. In other cases the same king rules over several tribes. Such was the case with Ariouistus, Maroboduus, and other kings with whom the Romans came in contact. This may arise either through conquest or through the attainment of predominant influence
