does not speak of a monarch as of a person, but attributes the
power to the "civitas," the tribe. It is well known, however,
that each tribe had a head, and that in Celtic countries the
power was never vested in a body of men, assembly, committee, or
board, as we say in modern times, but in the chieftain, whatever
may have been his degree.

The author of the "Commentaries" was a Roman in whose eyes the
state was every thing, the actual office-holder, dictator, consul,
or praetor, a mere instrument for a short time; and he was too apt,
like most of his countrymen, to judge of other nations by his own.

We may conclude from the passage quoted that there was a supreme
monarch in Gaul as well as in Ireland, and modern historians of
Gaul have acknowledged it.

But there is yet a stranger fact, which absolutely cannot be
explained, save on the supposition that the Celts everywhere held
the supreme dignity of extreme if not absolute importance in their
political system.

To give it the preeminence it deserves, we must refer to a subsequent
event in the history of the Celts in Britain, since it happened
there several centuries after Caesar, and we will quote the words
of Augustin Thierry, who relates it:

"After the retreat of the legions, recalled to Italy to protect
the centre of the empire and Rome itself against the invasion
of the Goths, the Britons ceased to acknowledge the power of the
foreign governors set over their provinces and cities. The forms,