That moral indignation and moral approval are from the very beginning felt, not with reference to certain modes of conduct _per se_, but with reference to persons on account of their conduct, is obvious from the intrinsic nature of those emotions. As we noticed before, they derive one of their most essential characteristics from their being directed against sensitive agents. Hence they may as naturally give rise to judgments on human character as to judgments on human conduct. And even when a moral judgment immediately refers to a distinct act, it takes notice of the {311} agent's will as a whole. The forgiveness which follows sincere repentance, and the distinction made between injuries committed deliberately in cold blood and injuries committed in the heat of passion, indicate that men, in their moral judgments, are apt to consider something more than a momentary volition. The same tendency is at the bottom of the common practice of punishing a second and third offence more severely than the first. Among the Masai, "if a man is convicted of a particular crime several times, or constitutes himself a public nuisance, he is proclaimed an outlaw, his property is confiscated, and he is beaten away from any settlement or village he goes near. Unless an outlaw can find friends among non-Masai tribes, he dies of starvation."[29] Among the Wakamba "a murder is judged by the elders; if it is a man's first offence of that kind he is punished by a fine. . . . But a man convicted for the second time of murder is killed at once, everyone setting on him the moment judgment is delivered. . . . For rape a first offender is flogged, and has to pay a fine of one cow; for the second offence he is killed."[30] Among the Wyandots of North America, "a woman guilty of adultery, for the first offence is punished by having her hair cropped; for repeated offences her left ear is cut off."[31] The laws of the Incas, also, were more lenient to a first offence than to a second;[32] and in the kingdom of Mechoacan, whilst the first theft was not severely punished, the thief who repeated his crime was thrown down a precipice and his carcass was left to the birds of prey.[33] Among the Aleuts, for the first theft "corporal punishment was inflicted; for the second offence of the kind some fingers of the right hand were cut off; for the third, the left hand and sometimes the lips were amputated; and for the fourth offence the punishment was death." Other crimes, again, "were punished at first by reprimand by the chief before the community, and upon repetition the offender was bound and kept in such a condition for some time."[34] The Kamchadales "burn the hands of people who have been frequently caught in theft, but for the first offence the thief must restore what he hath stolen, and live alone {312} in solitude, without expecting any assistance from others."[35] Among the Ainu, "for breaking into the storehouse or dwelling of another, a very sound beating was