[Footnote 14: Munzinger, _Die Sitten und das Recht der Bogos_, p. 83.] [Footnote 15: Newbold, _British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca_, ii. 257.] [Footnote 16: _Exodus_, xxi. 28 _sq._ _Leviticus_, xx. 15 _sq._] [Footnote 17: _ Vendîdâd_, xiii. 31. _Cf._ _ibid._ xiii. 32 _sqq._; _Yasts_, xxiv. 44.] [Footnote 18: Plato, _Leges_, ix. 873.] [Footnote 19: Chambers, _Book of Days_, i. 127. Pertile, 'Gli animali in giudizio,' in _Atti del R. Instituto Veneto_, ser. vi. vol. iv. 139. ] [Footnote 20: von Amira, _Thierstrafen_, pp. 2, 15, 16, 28 _sq._ In England such proceedings seem to have hardly occurred at all (_ibid._ p. 15), but, as we shall see, an animal which caused the death of a man was forfeited as deodand.] [Footnote 21: See Chambers, _op. cit._ i. 127 _sq._] [Footnote 22: Marlinengo-Cesaresco, _Essays in the Study of Folk-Songs_, p. 183 _sq._] [Footnote 23: Desmaze, _Les pénalités anciennes_, p. 31 _sq._] [Footnote 24: This is the opinion of von Amira, who, however--as it seems to me, without sufficient evidence--suggests that the maledictions did not refer to ordinary animals, but to human souls or devils in disguise (_Thierstrafen_, p. 16 _sqq._).] It has been suggested that the mediæval practice of punishing animals after human fashion was derived from the Mosaic law.[25] But this hypothesis does not account for the comparatively late appearance of the practice, nor for the fact that, in some cases, other punishments short of death were inflicted upon offending beasts.[26] It seems much more probable that the procedure in question developed out of an ancient European custom, to which it stood in the relationship of punishment to revenge.[27] According to the customs or laws of various so-called Aryan peoples--Greeks,[28] Romans,[29] Teutons,[30] Celts,[31] Slavs,[32]--an {256} animal which did some serious damage, especially if it caused the death of a man, was to be given up to the injured party, or his family, obviously in order that it might be retaliated upon.[33] According to the Welsh Laws, "that is the only case in which the murderer is to be given up for his deed."[34] The fact that afterwards, in the later Middle Ages, this form of reprisal was in certain instances transformed into regular punishment, only implies that the principle according to which punishment succeeded vengeance in the case of human crimes was, by way of analogy, extended to injuries committed by animals. [Footnote 25: _Ibid._ pp. 4, 47 _sqq._] [Footnote 26: Pertile, _loc. cit._ p. 148.] [Footnote 27: _Cf._ Brunner, _Forschungen zur Geschichte des deutschen und französischen Rechtes_, p. 517 _sqq._] [Footnote 28: Plutarch, _Vita Solonis_, 24. Xenophon, _Historiæ Græcæ_, ii. 4. 41.] [Footnote 29: _Institutiones_, iv. 9. _Digesta_, ix. 1.] [Footnote 30: _Lex Salica_ (cod. i.), 36. _Lex Ripuariorum_, 46. Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 664 _sqq._ Brunner, _Forschungen_, p. 513 _sqq._]