dreadful hells, obtain, after the conclusion [of that punishment] the following births:—

"The slayer of a Brahman enters the womb of a dog, a pig, an ass, a camel, a cow, a goat, a sheep, a deer, a bird, a chandala and a Pulkasi. ¹ . . .
"Men who delight in doing hurt become carniverous animals; those who eat forbidden food, worms; thieves become creatures that consume their own kind; those who have to do with women of the lowest castes become pretas (goblins) . . . .
"For stealing grain, a man becomes a rat; for stealing gold, a swan; for stealing water, a waterfowl; for stealing honey, a stinging insect; for stealing milk, a crow; for stealing condiments, a dog; for stealing clarified butter, an ichneumon." '

It is clear that the meaning of this is that every sin brings its own peculiar punishment, if not in the present life then in a future one. The punishment also, according to Manu, in many cases bears a certain appropriateness to the offence, as when gluttony is said to result in re-birth as a voracious animal, and theft of grain condemns the thief to become a rat and live with only one thought, how to steal grain and eat it. Yet even here the question arises: How can existence as a dog or a rat or a crow teach any one not to yield to the impulses which govern those animals? How can a man be reformed in this way, especially as he has no recollection of a previous existence and does not

know that he is suffering punishment for sins of this kind? The Hindus themselves admit that, at least in the case of most men, the human spirit has no recollection of any former life. It is difficult to imagine the possibility that a man's spirit should ever lose the recollection of its previous existences, if it has passed through other births. Loss of recollection would almost amount to a change of personality. At any rate, if one of the purposes for which punishment is inflicted be reformation of character, and another be the satisfaction of justice, it seems evident that transmigration cannot effect either of them. If the spirit is in a state of unconsciousness, it can do neither good nor bad, it can neither gain merit nor incur guilt, it can deserve neither reward nor punishment. For these things depend upon the answer to the question whether the spirit is acquainted or not acquainted with God's will and commandments, and knows the distinction between the righteous and the wicked and between reward and punishment. An animal, therefore, being devoid of this knowledge, cannot incur guilt, nor can it merit reward. If we suppose that, after a glutton's death, his spirit becomes reincarnated in a pig, and a wrathful man's spirit, or a murderer's, in a lion or tiger, then can it be imagined that the spirit will grow pure through inhabiting the body of a hog, or gentle and kind through living in that of a lion? If men's spirits were to be reincarnated