dance round together, and sing the same words; but the action is
confined to first one and then two players, who are taken by "choice"
from those forming the circle. This class principally consists of
courtship, love-making, and marriage games. The two principal parties
concerned usually have no words to say, though in some "love" games the
centre player does express his or her own feelings in verse. The fact
that this form is used for love and marriage games accounts for the much
larger number of games in this class and their greater variety.
In the third class of the circle game the players form the circle to act
the part of "chorus" to the story. There are also two, three, or four
players, as required, who act parts in dumb show suitable to the
character personified. In this class the circle personate both animate
and inanimate objects. The circle is stationary--at least the players
forming it do not dance or walk round. They sometimes represent houses;
a village, and animals are usually represented rather than people.
The circle games I consider to be survivals of dramatic representations
of customs performed by people of one village or of one town or
tribe--representations of social customs of one place or people, as
distinct from the "line" form of games, which represent a custom
obtaining between two rival villages or tribes. Thus I am inclined to
consider the joining of hands in a circle as a sign of amity, alliance,
and kinship. In the case of the line games hands are clasped by all
players on each side, who are thus in alliance against those on the
opposite side. When hands are joined all round so that a circle is
formed, all are concerned in the performance of the same ceremony. There
is no division into parties, neither is difference of opinion shown
either by action or words in circle games.
In the third class of game there are several distinct characters, and
the game partakes more of the nature of what we should call a play
proper, and may be considered an outcome of the circle play. There are
several characters, usually a mother, a witch or old woman, an elder
daughter and several younger children, a ghost, and sometimes animals,
such as sheep, wolves, fox, hen, and chickens. The principal characters
(not more than two or three) are played by different children, and these
having each a part allotted to them, have also a certain amount of
dialogue to say, and corresponding actions to perform. The remaining
characters, whether children or animals, merely act their part when
action is required, all doing the same thing, and have no words to say.
The dialogue in these games is short and to the point. It has not been
learnt from written sources, but orally, and as long as the main idea
and principal incidents are not departed from, the players may,
according to their capacity, add to or shorten the dialogue to heighten
the situation. There is no singing in these games, though there is what
perhaps might be called the remains of rhyme in the dialogue.
The fourth form, that of the arch, is played in two ways. In the first,
two children clasp their hands and hold them up to form an arch. Under
this all the other players run as if going through an arch or gateway,
and the players are generally stopped by the two who form the arch. Then
a circle is formed, and all the players join hands and dance round
together. In the second way, the arch is formed as above, and all the
players run under. These players are then caught one by one within the
arch, and have to choose one of the two leaders, behind whom they stand.
A tug-of-war then ensues between the two leaders and their followers.
The first of these, that ending with the circle or dancing, indicates
the celebration of an event in which all the people join, and all are of
one way of thinking--differing from this group of customs celebrated by
the simple circle game by each person in turn performing a ceremony,
signified in games by the action of going under or through an arch.
The second way, when the "tug" follows, represents a contest, but I do
not think the contest is of the same kind as that of the line form. This
rather represents the leaders of two parties who are antagonistic, who
call, in the words of the rhymes, upon the people of a town, or faction,
to join one of the two sides. The fact that each player in the line or
string is caught by the leaders, and has to choose which of them he will
fight under, together with the tug or pulling of one side over a marked
line, by the other side, indicates a difference in the kind of warfare
from the line contests, where territory is clearly the cause of the
struggle and fight. The line contest shows a fight between people of
different lands; and the arch contest, a method of choosing leaders by
people living in one land or town.
In the fifth form, "winding up games," the players join hands in a long
line, and wind round and round one player at the end of the line,
usually the tallest, who stands still until all are formed in a number
of circles, something like a watch spring. They then unwind, sometimes
running or dancing, in a serpentine fashion until all are again in
straight line. These games probably refer to the custom of encircling
trees, as an act of worship. They differ from the circle game in this
way: The players in a circle game surround something or some one. In the
"winding up" game they not only surround, but attachment or "hold" to
the thing surrounded has to be kept.
The fact that these games lend themselves to such treatment, and the
fact that I am obliged to use the terms, district, tribe, localities,
obliged to speak of a state of contest between groups, of the sacred
encircling of a tree, and of other significant usages, go far to suggest
that these games must contain some element which belongs to the
essential part of their form, and my next quest is for this element. I
shall take each class of game, and endeavour to ascertain what element
is present which does not necessarily belong to games, or which belongs
to other and more important branches of human action; and it will depend
on what this element is as to what can ultimately be said of the origin
of the games.
Of the games played in "line" form, "We are the Rovers" is the best
representative of pure contest between two opposing parties. If
reference is made to the game (vol. ii. pp. 343-356), the words will be
found to be very significant. In my account of the game (pp. 356-60), I
suggest that it owes its origin to the Border warfare which existed on
the Marches between England and Scotland and England and Wales, and I
give my reasons, from analysing the game, why I consider it represents
this particular form of contest rather than that of a fight between two
independent countries. Both sides advancing and retiring in turn, while
shouting their mutual defiance, and the final fight, which continues
until all of one side are knocked down or captured, show that a
deliberate fight was intended to be shown. I draw attention, too, to the
war-cry used by each side, which is also significant of one of the old
methods of rallying the men to the side of their leader--an especially
necessary thing in undisciplined warfare. This game, then, contains
relics of ancient social conditions. That such a contest game as this is
represented by the line form combining words, singing, and action, is, I
submit, good evidence of my contention that the line form of game
denotes contest. This game, then, I consider a traditional type of
contest game.
It is remarkable that among the ordinary, now somewhat old-fashioned,
contest games played by boys there should be some which, I think, are
degenerate descendants of this traditional type. There are a number of
boys' games, the chief features of which are catching and taking
prisoners and getting possession of an enemy's territory--as in the
well-known "Prisoner's Base" and "Scots and English." "Prisoner's Base"
(ii. pp. 80-87) in its present form does not appear to have much in
common with games of the type of "We are the Rovers," but on turning to
Strutt we find an earlier way of playing (_ibid._ p. 80). Now, this
description by Strutt gives us "Prisoner's Base" played by two lines of
players, each line joining hands, their homes or bases being at a
distance of twenty to thirty feet apart. That the line of players had to
keep to their own ground is, I think, manifest, from it being necessary
for one of the line to touch the base. There is no mention of a leader.
Thus we have here an undoubted form of a contest game, where the taking
of prisoners is the avowed motive, played in almost the same manner as
the line dramatic game. When the dramatic representation of a contest
became formulated in a definite game, the individual running out and
capturing a certain player on the opposite side would soon develop and
become a rule of the game, instead of all on one side trying to knock
down all on the other side. It may be a point to remember, too, that in
primitive warfare the object is to knock down and kill as many of the
enemy as possible, rather than the capture of prisoners.
In other games of a similar kind, the well-known "Scots and English"
(ii. p. 183), for example, we have the ground divided into two parts,
with a real or imaginary line drawn in the middle; the players rush
across the line and try to drag one of the opposite side across it, or
to capture the clothes of the players.
In other boys' games--"Lamploo," "Rax," "King of Cantland," "King
Cæsar," "Stag"--there are the two sides; the players are sometimes all
on one side, and they have to rush across to the other, or there are
some players on each side, who rush across to the opposite, trying to
avoid being taken prisoner by a player who stands in the middle between
the opposite goals. When this player catches a boy, that boy joins hands
with him; the next prisoner taken also joins hands, and these assist in
capturing others. This is continued until all the players are caught and
have joined hands in a long line, practically reverting to the line form
of game, and showing, according to my theory of the line game, that all
joining hands are of one side or party. If the line gets broken the
players can run back to their own side. There are many other games which
are played in a similar way (see Contest Games), though farther removed
from the original form. In most of these we have practically the same
thing--the sides have opposite homes, and the leader, though individual
at first, becomes merged in the group when the line is formed, and the
game ends by all the players being on one side. It must be mentioned,
too, that in these boys' games of fighting, the significant custom of
"crowning," that is, touching the head of the captured one, obtains. If
this is omitted the prisoner is at liberty to escape (see "Cock," "King
of Cantland").
Although there is no dialogue between the opposing parties in these
contest games, there are in some versions undoubted remains of it, now
reduced to a few merely formal words called a "nominy." These "nominys"
must be said before the actual fight begins, and the remains are
sufficient to show that the nominy was originally a defiance uttered by
one side and answered by the other. For these nominys, see "Blackthorn,"
"Chickidy Hand," "Hunt the Staigie," "Scots and English," "Johnny
Rover," "Shepherds," "Stag," "Warney," &c.
The next most important games in line form are marriage games. In the
well-known "Nuts in May" (vol. i. p. 424-433) there is a contest between
the two parties, but the contest here is to obtain an individual for the
benefit of the side. A line is drawn on the ground and a player is
deliberately sent to "fetch" another player from the opposite side, and
that this player is expected to conquer is shown by the fact that he is
selected for this purpose, and also because the ceremony of "crowning"
prevails in some versions. The boy, after he has pulled the girl across
the line, places his hand on her head to complete the capture and to
make a prisoner. This custom of "crowning" prevails in many games where
prisoners are made, and I have already mentioned it as occurring in the
boys' contest games. If the crowning is performed, the capture is
complete; if not performed, the prisoner may escape.
The evidence of this game, I consider, points to customs which belong to
the ancient form of marriage, and to what is technically known as
marriage by capture.
In the game of the "Three Dukes" (vol. ii. p. 233-255), it will be
noticed that the actions are very spirited. Coquetry, contempt, and
annoyance are all expressed in action, and the boys imitate riding and
the prancing of horses. I must draw special attention to the remarks I
have made in my account of the game, and for convenience in comparing
the line marriage games I will repeat shortly the principal points here.
In some versions, the three dukes each choose a wife at the same time,
and when these three are "wived" or "paired" another three do the same.
In another version "five" dukes each choose a wife, and all five couples
dance round together. But most significant of all is the action of the
dukes after selecting the girl, trying to carry her off, and her side
trying to prevent it.
In this game, then, I think we have a distinct survival of or
remembrance of the tribal marriage--marriage at a period when it was the
custom for the men of a clan or village to seek wives from the girls of
another clan--both belonging to one tribe. The game is a marriage game
of the most matter-of-fact kind. Young men arrive from a place at some
distance for the purpose of seeking wives. The maidens are apparently
ready and expecting their arrival. They are as willing to become wives
as the men are to become husbands. It is not marriage by force or
capture, though the triumphant carrying off of a wife appears. It is
exogamous marriage custom. The suggested depreciation of the girls, and
their saucy rejoinders, are so much good-humoured chaff and banter
exchanged to enhance each other's value. There is no mention of "love"
in the game, nor courtship between the boy and girl. The marriage
formula does not appear, nor is there any sign that a "ceremony" or
"sanction" to marry is necessary, nor does "kissing" occur. Another
interesting point about this game is the refrain, "With a rancy, tancy,
tee," which refrain, or something similar, accompanies all verses of all
versions, and separates this game from others akin to it. This refrain
is doubtless a survival of an old tribal war-cry.
The game of "The Three Knights from Spain" (ii. pp. 257-279), played in
the same way as "Three Dukes," may appear at first to be a variant of
the "Three Dukes"; but it is significant that the form of marriage
custom is different, though it is still marriage under primitive
conditions of society. The personal element, entirely absent from the
"Three Dukes," is here one of the principal characteristics. The
marriage is still one without previous courtship or love between two
individuals, but the parental element is present here, or, at any rate,
if not parental, there is that of some authority, and a sanction to
marry is given, although there is no trace of any actual ceremony. The
young men apparently desire some particular person in marriage, and a
demand is made for her. The suitors here are, I think, making a demand
on the part of another rather than for themselves. They may be the
ambassadors or friends of the would-be bridegroom, and are soliciting
for a marriage in which purchase-money or dowry is to be paid. The
mention of "gold" and "silver" and the line, "She must be sold," and the
offering of presents by the "Knights," are important. These indications
of purchase refer to a time when the custom of offering gold, money, and
other valuables for a bride was in vogue. While, therefore, the game has
traces of capturing or carrying off the bride, this carrying off is in
strict accord with the conditions prevalent when marriage by purchase
had succeeded to marriage by capture. There is evidence in this game of
a mercantile spirit, which suggests that women and girls were too
valuable to be parted with by their own tribe or family without
something deemed an equivalent in return.
In another line game, "Here comes Three Sailors" (ii. pp. 282-289),
there is still more evidence of the mercantile or bargaining spirit.
Here the representative of the parental element or other authority
selects the richest and highest in rank of the suitors, and a sum of
money is given with the bride. The suitors are supposed to have
performed some actions which have gained them renown and entitled them
to a wife. The suitors are accepted or rejected by a person having
authority, and this authority introduces an interesting and suggestive
feature. The suitors are invited to stay or lodge in the house if
accepted, probably meaning admission into the family. The girl is to
"wake up," and not sleep, that is, to rouse up, be merry, dress in
bridal array, and prepare for the coming festival. She is given to the
suitors with "in her pocket one hundred pounds," and "on her finger a
gay gold ring." This is given by the "mother" or those having authority,
and refers, I believe, to the property the girl takes with her to her
new abode for her proper maintenance there; the ring shows her station
and degree, and is a token that she is a fit bride for a "king."
Curious, too, is the "Here's my daughter safe and sound," which looks
like a warrant or guarantee of the girl's fitness to be a bride, and the
robbery of the bride may also have originally related to the removal of
the bride's wedding-dress or ornaments before she enters on her wifely
duties.
Following these definite marriage games in line form, in which previous
love or courtship does not appear, we have several games formerly played
at weddings, practically as a part of the necessary amusement to be gone
through after a marriage ceremony by the company present, amusements in
which are the traces of earlier custom.
"Babbity Bowster" (i. pp. 9-11) is an old Scottish dance or game which
used to be played as the last dance at weddings and merrymakings. It was
danced by two lines of players, lads on one side, girls on the other. A
lad took a handkerchief--in earlier times a bolster or pillow--and
danced out in front of the girls, singing. He then selected a girl,
threw the handkerchief into her lap or round her neck, holding both ends
himself, and placed the handkerchief at her feet on the floor. His
object was to obtain a kiss. This was not given without a struggle, and
the line of girls cheered their companion at every unsuccessful attempt
the boy made. When a girl took the handkerchief she threw it to a boy,
who had to run after and catch her and then attempt to take a kiss. When
all had done thus they danced in line form. This dance took place at the
time when bride and bridegroom retired to the nuptial chamber. It is
probable the bride and bridegroom would first go through the dance, and
after the bridegroom had caught his bride and they had retired the dance
would be continued in sport. The chasing of the bride in sport by her
new-made husband at the close of the marriage festivities is mentioned
in old ballads.
In the "Cushion Dance" (i. pp. 87-94) we have an instance of another
similar old English game sang and danced at weddings. The "Cushion
Dance," though not played in line form, has two other elements of
"Babbity Bowster." The description is so interesting, I will repeat it
shortly here. The company were all seated. Two young men left the room,
and returned carrying, one a square cushion, the other a drinking horn
or silver tankard. The young man carrying the cushion locked the door,
taking the key. The young men then danced round the room to a lively
tune played by a fiddler, and sang the words of the dance. There is a
short dialogue with the fiddler, in which it is announced that "Jane
Sandars won't come to." The fiddler says "She must come, whether she
will or no." The young men then dance round again and choose a young
woman, before whom they place the cushion and offer the horn or cup. The
girl and the young man kneel on the cushion and kiss. Here there is no
capturing or chasing of the girl, but her reluctance to be brought to
the cushion is stated by another person, and the locking of the door is
evidently done to prevent escape of the girls.
Other line games contain the element of courting, some versions of
"Green Grass," for instance (i. pp. 161-62), show boys on one line,
girls on the other, inviting girls to come and dance, and promising them
gifts. After the boys have selected a girl, she is asked if she will
come. She replies first No! then Yes! "Pray, Pretty Miss," is similar to
these (vol. ii. pp. 65-67).
The remaining line form of marriage games are probably degenerate
versions of "Three Dukes," "Three Knights," except "Here Comes a Lusty
Wooer" (i. 202) and "Jolly Hooper" (i. 287-88). Ritson records the
first of these two in "Gammer Gurton's Garland," 1783; the second is
probably a degenerate version of the first or similar version. They are
both demands for a bride.
The other important line games are "Jenny Jones" (i. 260-283), "Lady of
the Land," and "Queen Anne." I refer here to the Scotch version of
"Jenny Jones," quoted from Chambers, given in vol. i. p. 281, where
"Janet Jo" is a dramatic entertainment amongst young rustics. Two of the
party represent a goodman and a goodwife, the rest a family of
daughters. One of the lads, the best singer, enters, demands to court
Janet Jo. He is asked by the goodwife what he will give for Janet Jo.
His offers of a peck o' siller, a peck of gold, are refused; he offers
more and is accepted, and told to sit beside his chosen one. He then has
a scramble with her for kisses. Versions of this game which indicate
funeral customs will be treated under that head; but love and courtship
appear in the game, and the courting appears to be that of a young man
or young men, to whom objection is made, pretended or real; the suitors
are evidently objects of suspicion to the parental authority, and their
sincerity is tested by the offers they make.
In "Queen Anne," vol. ii. pp. 90-102, I have attempted a conjectural
rendering of what the game might have been, by putting together the
words of different versions. If this conjectural restoration be accepted
as something near the original form, it would suggest that this game
originated from one of the not uncommon customs practised at weddings
and betrothals, where the suitor has to discriminate between several
girls all dressed exactly alike, and to distinguish his bride by some
token. This incident of actual primitive custom also obtains in
folk-tales, showing its strong hold on popular tradition. Many a lost
bride in the folk-tales proves her identity by having possession of some
article previously given as a token, and this idea may account for the
"ball" incident in this game. (See also "King William.")
From these games, when thus taken together, we have evidence of the
existence of customs obtaining in primitive marriage, and the fact that
these customs, namely, those of marriage by capture, marriage by
purchase, marriage by consent of others than those principally
concerned, in other words, marriage between comparative strangers, occur
in games played in line form, a form used for contest and fighting
games, tends to show that the line form is used for the purpose of
indicating the performance of customs which are supposed to take place
between people living in different countries, towns, and villages, or
people of different tribes or of different habits and customs. The more
imperfect games of this type, though they have lost some of the vigour,
have still enough left to show, when placed with the others, a
connection with customs performed in the same manner.
In "Lady of the Land," for instance (vol. i. pp. 313-20), the words
indicate a lady hiring a poorer woman's daughters as servants, and, no
doubt, originates from the country practice of hiring servants at fairs,
or from hirings being dramatically acted at Harvest Homes. The old
practice of hirings at fairs is distinctly to be traced in local customs
(see p. 319), and is a common incident in folk-tales. In this game, too,
actions would be performed suitable to the work the players undertake to
do.
It is not necessary to mention in detail any of the remaining line
games, because they are fragmentary in form, and do not add any further
evidence to that already stated.