Teutonic Peoples

Probably no institution of the Teutonic peoples exercised a greater influence on their history than the comitatus. Caesar records that it was customary at tribal assemblies for one or other of the chiefs to propose an expedition. He had generally no difficulty in gathering a following, and those who embraced his service were held bound to accompany him to the end, any who drew back being regarded as traitors. Moreover, kings and other distinguished persons kept standing bodies of young warriors, an honour to them in time of peace, as Tacitus says, as well as a protection in war. Chiefs of known prowess and liberality attracted large retinues, and their influence within the tribe, and even beyond, increased proportionately. The followers (called by Tacitus comites, in England "thegns," among the Franks antrustiones, etc.) were expected to remain faithful to their lord even to death; indeed the relationship between the two seems to have reckoned as equivalent to that of father and son.

According to Tacitus it was regarded as a disgrace for a comes to survive his lord, and in later times they frequently shared his exile. At the battle of Strassburg in 357, when the Alamannic king Chonodomarius was taken prisoner by the Romans, his two hundred comites gave themselves up voluntarily to share his captivity. In return for their services the chief was expected to reward his followers with treasure, arms and horses. If he were a king the reward might take the form of a grant of land, or of jurisdiction over a section of the population subject to him—in early times a village, in later, perhaps, a considerable district. Further, since the grantees as a rule naturally sent their sons into the service of their own lords, such grants tended to become hereditary, and in them we have the origin of the baronage of the middle ages. The origin of the earls or counts, on the other hand, is to be found in the governors of large districts (Tacitus's principes), who seem at first generally to have been members of the royal family, though later drawn from the highest barons.

Social Organization.

In the time of Tacitus there were three social classes, viz. nobles, freemen and freedmen, which are met with in later times, though occasionally one of them dis appears, e.g. the nobility among the Franks and the freedmen (as a distinct class) in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, except Kent. Each of these classes was, to a large extent at least, hereditary and had separate rights and privileges of its own. Among the chief of these must be reckoned the wergeld or "man-price." When homicide took place vengeance was regarded as a sacred duty incumbent on the relatives, and sometimes at least the lord also, of the slain man; but, as in the case of any other injury, compensation could be made by a fixed payment. From the evidence of later custom it is probable that the normal payment for a freeman was a hundred head of cattle. The sums paid for

members of the other classes were more variable ; for the freed man, however, they were always lower, and for the noble higher, sometimes apparently three or four times as high. Similar grada tions occur in the compensations paid for various injuries and insults, in fines and, among some tribes, in the value attached to a man's oath. There is uncertainty in regard to both the exact position and numbers of the nobles and freedmen of Taci tus's age.

Groups of family and kindred occupy a prominent position in the accounts of Teutonic society given by Caesar and Tacitus. It was regarded as a universal duty to afford protection to one's kinsmen, to assist them in the redress of wrongs and to exact vengeance or compensation in case of death. Hence to have a numerous kindred was a guarantee of security and influence. The large amounts fixed for the wergelds of nobles and even of freemen were paid no doubt, as in later times, not only by the slayer himself, but by every member of his kindred in propor tion to the nearness or remoteness of his relationship; and in like manner they were distributed among the kindred of the slain. The kindred appear also in the tenure of land, and accord ing to Tacitus the tribal armies were drawn up by kindreds. As to the nature of these organizations the evidence is not altogether consistent. Agnatic succession prevailed among the princely families of the Cherusci, and the general account given in the Germania implies that this type of organization was normal. On the other hand there are distinct traces of matriliny in Tacitus's works in Northern traditions and in the Salic law.

Marriage.

All the usual forms of marriage were known. Mar riage by purchase appears most prominently in Kent and among the Old Saxons, Langobardi and Burgundians. In other nations, e.g. the Franks, we find the payment of a very small sum, which is often regarded as symbolic and as a relic of real purchase. Yet this explanation is open to question owing to the very early date at which the regulation appears, and to the fact that in the case of widows the sum specified had to be paid to relatives of the widow herself on the female side, and by preference to those of a younger generation. Again, Tacitus states that the presents of arms and oxen given by the bridegroom at marriage were made to the bride herself and not to her guardian, and such appears to have been the case in the North also from early times. It is not certain, therefore, that marriage by purchase was a universal and primitive Teutonic custom. Of the actual ceremonies prac tised at marriage little is known. It was preceded, however, by a formal betrothal and accompanied by a feast.