| Abstract: | The decision to risk an attempt at functional comparison between two historical figures over a period of more than four hundred years proceded from etymological considerations of various types, but was first suggested by the contrast between Athanaric and Armimus as they are portrayed in modern historical literature. As in the case of the institutional analogy of the judge of the Goths with the vergobretos of the Celts, there exists no historical relationship between the life histories of the two Germanic chieftains, in the sense that Athanaric cannot have been influenced to act as he did by the story of Arminius, nor can we assume a direct dependence of the later institution on the earlier one, any more than we can accept the possibility of arriving at the name for the Gothic judge from Celtic, in a way in which this is possible for reiks. Such an observation, otherwise trivial in itself, serves to characterize the methods and limits of the functional comparison. This yields historical insights which apply to the individual case in question: along with new considerations concerning rex-reiks, an argument is developed against the opinion that Athanaric's judgeship was one of a lower rank than genuine kingship, before which the Gothic chief — for whatever reason — was supposed to have drawn back in fear. This makes his judgeship look more like an ‘institutionalized magistracy’, exercising royal power for a set term, than a mere ethnic dignity. Further, the comparison establishes that the Celtic, as well as the Gothic, judgeship was possibly held in dual fashion, or could be held that way, before the period under observation; however, the pairs to be dealt with here do not represent any ‘Dioscurian’ double chiefdom but rather pairs of chieftains rivalling each other. The archaic experience may serve in this instance only as a model for shaping the tradition.Finally, it is recognized — and this could well be our most important finding — that the judgeship is limited, not only in time but also in territory: it had valid jurisdiction only inside the tribal territory itself. It follows from this that the judge's duties comprised defense of the fatherland as well as the execution of judgments.Along with the ‘external’ comparison among Goths, Celts, and Cheruscans, an ‘internal’ functional comparison is drawn within fourth-century Gothic constitutional history. In so doing, the possibility is opened for reconstructing the family leadership of the Balts three generations before Alaric. Then, within Gothic tradition, we are able to arrive of the ruling and institutional function of the ‘wisdom’, which both the Gothicized Decaeneus and Theoderic, as well as Athanaric |
