This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1894. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... office subsequent to the period of greatest strength and previous to that of greatest weakness. In the early Teutonic tribes, executive functions, as we understand them, were in an ill-defined and formative condition. There were elective officers of various titles, some for civil, and some for military affairs. Among these officers in certain tribes kings are named.1 But the Teutonic kingship, though held in high honour, had only limited and uncertain powers in time of peace, and was not necessarily chief in command in time of war; being quite different from the ideal created by later associations.2 Like other officials, the king was elected; but unlike them, was chosen, with the thought of blood 1 From the words of Csesar it has been supposed that kings were the exception rather than the rule. His words are: "In pace, nullus est communis magistratus; sed principes regionum atque pagorum inter suos jus dicunt."--De Bello Gallico, vi. 23. Tacitus draws a clear distinction between tribes having kings, and tribes not having them.--Germania, cc. 25, 44. Commenting upon this, so great an authority as Kemble says: "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 is 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."--Saxons in England, I--37 a Waitz considers that the king was the military head in monarchical tribes. See Deutsche Verfassungs-Geschichte, I. 310 sq. But Tacitus says: "Duces ex virtute sumunt... et duces exemplo potius quam imperio, si prompti, si c...