the amount which must be paid in lieu of the blood-guilt. With the institution of wergild the entire matter becomes one of civil law. Only one further step is necessary, and the law of contract will indirectly have established the penal authority of the State. This step is taken when the State _compels_ the parties to enter into an agreement on the basis of the wergild. The advance, however, was not made at a single bound, but came only through the influence of a number of intermediate factors. That which first demanded a legal determination of the amount of expiation money was the necessity of estimating the personal value of the one who had been murdered, according as the individual was free-born or dependent, of a high or of a low class, an able-bodied man or a woman. Such a gradation in terms of general social status suggested the propriety of allowing temporary and less serious injuries to life and limb to be compensated for on the basis of their magnitude. But the estimation of damages in such cases again made civil jurisdiction absolutely necessary. Closely interconnected with this complex of social factors, and imposing a check upon the impulse for vengeance that flames up in blood-revenge, was a religious influence--the fear of contaminating by a deed of violence a spot that was sanctified by the presence of invisible gods. No violence of any kind was allowed within sacred precincts, particularly in places set apart for sacrifice or for other cult ceremonies; least of all was violence tolerated in the temple, for the temple was regarded as the dwelling of a deity. Such places, therefore, afforded protection to all who fled to them from impending blood-revenge or other sources of danger. The sacred place also stood under the protection of the community; any violation of it brought down upon the offender the vengeance of the entire group, for the latter regarded such sacrilege as a source of common danger. Thus, the protection of the _sanctuary_ came to be a legal right even at a time when retribution for the crime itself was left to the vengeance of individuals. The right of protection afforded by the temple, however, was sometimes held to exist also in the case of the dwellings of persons of distinguished power and esteem, particularly the dwellings of the chief and of the priest. Indeed, prior to the existence of public temples, the latter were doubtless the only places of refuge. In this form, the beginnings of a right of refuge date back even into the totemic age. At that early time, however, the protection was apparently due, not so much to directly religious factors, as to the personal power of the individual who afforded the refuge, or also, particularly in Polynesia, to the 'taboo' with which the upper classes were privileged to guard their property. But, since the taboo was probably itself of religious origin, and since the medicine-man, and occasionally also the chief, could utilize demoniacal agencies as