As an institution protected by the State, the administration of penal law everywhere grew up out of civil law. The judge who was appointed by the State to arbitrate personal controversies developed into a criminal judge. Still later these two judicial offices became distinct. This separation began in connection with the most serious offences, such as seemed to demand a separate tribunal. The determining feature, in this instance, was, at the outset, not any qualitative characteristic of the offence but its gravity. Now, at the time when deity cults were at their zenith, the most serious crimes were held to be those connected with religion, namely, temple sacrilege and blasphemy. Only at a relatively late period were crimes against life and limb classed along with those affecting religion; to these were added, shortly afterwards, violations of property rights. That murder, though the most frequent crime of early culture, should not be penalized by political authority until so late a period, is directly due to the fact that it has its origin in the strife of individuals. In such a strife, each man personally assumes all consequences, even though these consist in the loss of his life. Even to slay a man from ambush is regarded as justifiable by primitive society if an individual is avenging a crime from which he has suffered. As family and kinship ties become stronger, the family or kin participates as a group in the quarrels of its individual members, just as it does in war against hostile tribes. A murder, whether or not it be an act of vengeance, is avenged by a fellow-member of the victim, either upon the murderer or upon some one of his kin, inasmuch as in this case also the group is regarded as taking the part of the individual. This is the practice of _blood-revenge_, a practice which antedates the heroic age but which nevertheless continues to exercise a powerful influence upon it. Blood-revenge is so closely bound up with totemic tribal organization that it was probably never lacking wherever any such system arose. Its status, however, was purely that of a custom, not that of a legal requirement. It was custom alone, and not political authority, that compelled one kinsman to avenge the death of another. It was custom also that sought to do away with the disastrous results of a continuous blood-feud by means of an arrangement that came to take the place of blood-revenge. This substitute was the 'wergild,' which was paid as an indemnity by the malefactor to the family of the one who had been murdered, and which thus maintained precisely the same relation to blood-revenge as did marriage by purchase to marriage by capture. In the former case, however, the substitution of a peaceful agreement for an act of violence gave the political authority its first occasion to exercise its regulative power. This first manifestation of power consisted in the fact that the political authority determined