[Footnote 31: _Ancient Laws of Ireland_, i. 161; iv. 177, 179, 181. _Welsh Laws_, iv. i. 17 (_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 391).] [Footnote 32: Macieiowski, _Slavische Rechtsgeschichte_, iv. 333.] [Footnote 33: See _Lex Wisigothorum_, viii. 4. 20; _Schwabenspiegel_, Landrechtbuch, 204; Dirksen, _Civilistische Abhandlungen_, i. 104; von Jhering, _Geist des römischen Rechts_, i. 123; Hepp, _Die Zurechnung auf dem Gebiete des Civilrechts_, p. 103; Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 664; Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, ii. 556; _Idem_, _Forschungen_, p. 513.] [Footnote 34: _Welsh Laws_, iv. 1. 17 (_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 391).] There has been considerable diversity of opinion concerning the purpose of inflicting punishments upon animals. Some writers suggest that it was possibly done with a view to deterring other animals from committing similar injuries.[35] According to others, the animal was executed in order that the hateful act should be forgotten; Gratian, referring to St. Augustine,[36] says, "Non propter culpam, sed propter memoriam facti pecus occiditur, ad quod mulier accesserit."[37] A theory which has gained much adherence explains the punishment as a symbolic act, performed for the purpose of inspiring horror of the crime into the minds of men.[38] M. Thonissen maintains that, at Athens, "on frappait l'animal auteur d'un homicide, afin que le peuple, en voyant périr un être privé de raison, conçut une grande horreur pour l'effusion du sang humain."[39] It has also been supposed that the animal was punished with intention to intimidate those {257} who were responsible for its acts,[40] or that it was killed because it was dangerous.[41] But the true solution of the problem seems simple enough. The animal had to suffer on account of the indignation it aroused. It was regarded as responsible for its deed.[42] In early records the punishment is frequently spoken of as an act of "justice";[43] and the protests of Beaumanoir and others against this opinion[44] only show that it was held in good earnest, if not by all, at least by many. From certain details we can also see how closely the responsibility ascribed to animals resembled the responsibility of men. In some of the texts of the Salic law the animal is spoken of as "auctor criminis."[45] In an ancient Irish law-tract it is said that, when a bee has blinded a person's eye, the whole hive "shall pay the fine," and "the many become accountable for the crime of one, although they all have not attacked."[46] Youth was a ground for acquittal, as appears from a case which occurred at Lavegny in 1457, when a sow and her six young ones were tried on a charge of their having murdered and partly eaten a child: whilst the sow, being found guilty, was condemned to death, the young pigs were acquitted on account of their youth and the bad example of their mother.[47] In Burgundy, a distinction was made between a mischievous dog that entered a room