through the headmen.  The man who continues to kill may be killed in turn, but by order of the council of the tribe; and one of his kinsmen may be appointed to execute him, as under that condition no feud can follow.  But there is always a reluctance to banish or take the life of the member of the group, both because no definite machinery is developed for accomplishing either, and because the loss of an able-bodied member of a group is a loss to the group itself.  The group does not seek, therefore, immediately to be rid of an offensive member, but to modify his habits, to convert him.  Jones says of the Ojibways that there were occasionally bad ones among them, “but the good council of the wise sachems and the mark of disgrace put upon unruly persons had a very desirable influence."[199] The extreme form of punishment in the power of the folk-moot of the Tuschinen is to be excluded from the public feasts, and to be made a spectator while stoned in effigy and cursed.[200] Sending a man to Coventry is in vogue among the Fejir Beduins:  one who kills a friend is so despised that he is never spoken to again, nor allowed to sit in the tent of any member of the tribe.[201]

The formulation of sentiment about an act depends also on the repetition of the act.  The act is more irritating, and the irritation more widespread, with each repetition, and there is an increase of the penalty for a second offense, and death for a slight offense when frequently repeated:  in the Netherlands stealing of linen left in the fields to be bleached led to the death penalty for stealing a pocket handkerchief.  And with increasing definiteness of authority there follows increasing definiteness of punishment; and when finally the habit becomes fixed, conformity with it becomes a paramount consideration, and a deed is no longer viewed with reference to its intrinsic import so much as to its conformity or nonconformity with a standard in the law:  summum jus, summa injuria.

Morality, involving the modification of the conduct of the individual in view of the presence of others, is already highly developed in the tribal stage, since the exigencies of life have demanded the most rigorous regulation of behavior in order to secure the organization and the prowess essential to success against all comers.  But the tribe is a unit in hostile coexistence with other similar units, and its morality stops within itself, and applies in no sense to strangers and outsiders.  The North American Indians were theoretically at war with all with whom they had not concluded a treaty of peace.  In Africa the traveler is safe and at an advantage if by a fiction (the rite of blood-brotherhood) he is made a member of the group; and similarly in Arabia and elsewhere.  The old epics and histories are full of the praises of the man who is gentle within the group and furious without it.  The earliest commandments doubtless did not originally apply to mankind at large.  They meant, “Thou shalt