CHAP, 111. FIEST REVOLUTION. 315 diviclually as powerful as he, and who, united, were much more powerful. We can easily believe that he had some difficulty in commanding obedience. Men would have great respect for him, because he was the head of the worship, and guardian of the sacred hearth; but they might not be very submissive, since he had little power. The governors and the governed were not long in perceiving that they were not of the same opinion on the measure of obedience that was due. riie kings wished to be powerful, and the patres pre- ferred that they should not be. A struggle then com- menced in all the cities, between the aristocracy and the kings. Everywhere the issue of the struggle was the same. Royalty was vanquished. But we must not forget that this primitive royalty was sacred. The king was the man who pronounced the prayers, who offered the sacri- fice, who had, in fine, by hereditary right, the power to call down uj^on the city the protection of the gods. Men could not think, therefore, of doing away with the king ; one was necessary to their religion ; one was necessary to the safety of the city. So we see in all the cities whose history is known to us, that they did not at first touch the religious authority of the king, and contented themselves with taking away his politi- cal power. This was only a sort of appendix, whieii the kings had added to their priesthood, and was not, like that, sacred and inviolable. It might be taken from the kings without imperilling religion. Royalty was, therefore, preserved ; but, shorn of its power, it was no longer anything but a priesthood. "In very ancient times," says Aristotle, "kings had absolute power in peace and war; but in the course of time some renounced this power voluntarily, from
